Delhi District Court
State vs . on 6 April, 2019
Page 1 of 103
IN THE COURT OF SH VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04, WEST DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT010017142014
SC No. 57521/16
FIR No. 229/14
P.S. Uttam Nagar
U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC
State
Vs.
1. Rahul Nirwal
S/o Sh. Narender Singh
R/o H.No. A1/180, Hastal Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi
Also at:
Majra Road, Majra Village, District Shamli, UP
2. Narender Singh
S/o Late Kallu Ram
R/o Majra Road, Majra Village, District Shamli, UP.
3. Smt Rajesh
W/o Narender Singh
R/o Majra Road, Majra Village, District Shamli, UP.
4. Rajiv Kumar
S/o Sh. Harpal Singh
R/o H. No. C15, Shiksha Nagar, Dev Band,
District Saharanpur, UP.
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc
FIR No.229/14
P.S. - Uttam Nagar
U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC
Page 2 of 103
5. Smt Monica
W/o Sh. Rajiv Kumar
R/o H. No. C15, Shiksha Nagar, Dev Band,
District Saharanpur, UP.
Date of committal to Court of Sessions : 19/06/2014
Final Arguments concluded on : 19/01/2019
Date of Judgment : 06/04/2019
JUDGMENT
1. The present case has been registered against the accused persons for the offences u/s 498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC. As per the case of prosecution, marriage of deceased Ms. Priyanka was solemnized with accused Rahul Nirwal on 17/11/2010 but since the inception of marriage, there was demand of dowry including cash from deceased and her parents from the side of accused persons and that all the accused persons used to harass the deceased, instigated accused Rahul Nirwal to harass the deceased. It is further the case of prosecution that on 02/03/2014, accused Rahul Nirwal i,.e., husband of deceased had come from Shamli and after coming from there, he had quarrel with the deceased in the morning as well as in the afternoon of 03/03/2014 at around 3.30 pm to 4 pm and that due to her being subjected to cruelty for non fulfillment of demand of dowry, deceased committed suicide on 03/03/2014.
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 3 of 103
2. Thereafter the investigation was completed and the chargesheet u/s 498A/304B/34/406 IPC was filed on 31/05/2014 before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, West District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. Vide order dated 06/06/2014, Ld. M.M committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
3. Vide order dated 19/01/2015, charge u/s 498A/304B/34 IPC was framed against all the accused and u/s 406/34 IPC was framed against accused Rahul Nirwal, Narender and Smt Rajesh separately to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the trial, the prosecution examined 25 witnesses.
5. PW1 ASI Bhoop Singh has stated that on 04/03/2014, while he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar and was working as duty officer from 8 am to 3.45 pm, SI Kuldeep Singh came to him in Duty Officer Room and handed over rukka for the registration of the case. On the basis of which, he got recorded the present FIR through computer operator and signed the print of the FIR Ex PW 1/A.
6. PW1 has further stated that he made endorsement Ex PW1/B on the rukka regarding the registration of the present FIR. He also issued certificate as required u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act Ex PW1/C regarding registration of the present FIR on computer. After the registration of the case, he handed over original rukka and the copy of FIR to Inspector State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 4 of 103 Mukesh for the purpose of the further investigation.
7. PW2 ASI Ajit Singh has stated that on 03.03.2014, while he was posted as Incharge Crime Team, West District, Delhi, on receiving a call from Control Room, he alongwith Ct. Satpal Photographer and Ct. Sukhram Pal fingerprint proficient reached at the spot i.e. A1/180, First floor, Hastsal road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. SI Kuldeep Singh of PS Uttam Nagar alongwith other staff met him there. He saw one lady was lying dead on the bed. He inspected the spot. The window glass was broken. Bolt of the door from inside was also broken. Half piece of chunni was found hanging with ceiling fan and remaining half portion of that chunni was lying on the bed near dead body. Ct. Satpal took photographs of the spot from different angles. He prepared his crime scene inspection report Ex PW2/A and handed over the same to SI Kuldeep Singh, which was in his own hand writing and bears his signatures.
8. PW3 Ct Satpal has stated that on 03.03.2014, while he was posted as photographer in Crime Team, West District, Delhi, on receiving a call from Control Room, he alongwith ASI Ajit Singh, Incharge Crime Team and Ct. Sukhram Pal fingerprint proficient reached at the spot i.e. A 1/180, First floor, Hastsal road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi. SI Kuldeep Singh of PS Uttam Nagar alongwith other staff met him there. He saw one lady was lying dead on the bed. He inspected the spot. The window glass was broken. Bolt State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 5 of 103 of the door from inside was also broken. Half piece of chunni was found hanging with ceiling fan and remaining half portion of that chunni was lying near neck of dead body. He took 11 photographs of the spot from different angles. The negatives of the photographs are collectively Ex PW3/A and ten photographs are Ex PW3/B1 to Ex PW3/B10. He has further stated that total negatives are 11 but one photograph could not be developed from one negative.
9. PW4 Smt Harpal Kaur has stated that accused Rahul lived as tenant at the first floor of her house alongwith his wife Priyanka for about two years i.e. from January 2012 till March 2014. Mother in law, father in law and sister in law of Priyanka also used to reside in the rented accommodation of said house. Brother of Priyanka namely Mohit also lived in her house as tenant for about one and half years starting from after about 89 months, when Priyanka had started living in her house.
10. PW4 has further stated that accused Rahul used to leave the house for his job at about 8:008:30am in morning and used to come back by 6:007:00pm. Accused Rahul was her tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 4000/, while Mohit was paying Rs. 2000/ per month as rent.
11. PW4 has further stated that the general relations between Rahul and Priyanka were cordial but as and when her mother in law and sister in law used to come, they used to tell her that Priayanka was not talking to State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 6 of 103 them. Priyanka on the other hand used to tell her that due to household work, she could not sit with her mother in law and sister in law. Priyanka was a gentle girl and was trained in every type of household work and she also used to take care of her as and when she was ill. Priyanka used to get disturbed as and when she used to visit her in law's house at Shamli.
12. PW4 has further stated that on one occasion i.e. after about 12 months of her living as tenant, when Priyanka returned from Shamli, she was ill. She took her to Dr. Kalra in Vikas Puri and the doctor, after her examination, told that she was not suffering from any illness and she was actually mentally disturbed/ill. Priyanka had told her that she was afraid of going to Shamli and she felt Pressurized.
13. PW4 has further stated that on one occasion, i.e. in November/ December 2013, Priyanka and Rahul had gone to the house of her sister in law i.e. accused Monika at Devband. After returning from there, Priyanka had told her that her mother in law and sister in law were wearing all the jewellery but she was not given any jewellery item and was not permitted to wear the same. She was very sad. She consoled her but she felt that she was deeply disturbed ("man pe le rakha tha"). Father in law, mother in law and sister in law of Priyanka did not use to reside permanently with Rahul and Priyanka in her tenanted house and they used to visit occasionally.
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 7 of 103
14. PW4 has further stated that in her presence, accused Smt. Rajesh, accused Monika and her children visited the house of accused Rahul on two occasions. On one occasion, they had come for 'Delhi Darshan' and on another occasion, they had come for treatment of the daughter of accused Monika. Since, she used to reside sometime in Delhi and sometimes at Chandigarh, so she cannot say if the family members of accused Rahul visited the house during her absence or not. As and when she was out of Delhi, Priyanka used to take care of her house and keys of her house used to remain with her. She used to treat Priyanka as her daughter. Priyanka was a well educated and well behaved girl. Rahul and Priyanka were having only one bed and TV when they had come to Delhi.
15. PW4 has further stated that on 03.03.2014, Priyanka was present with her on the roof of her house till 2:302:45pm. She (Priyanka) was observing "Somvar ka Vrat" on that day. She asked her (Priyanka) if she had eaten something and she told her that she had taken tea and also eaten something. Thereafter, at about 3:00pm, she came down on ground floor in her house after giving her phone to Priyanka as she was not having sufficient balance in her mobile phone and she had to talk to her mother.
16. PW4 has stated that at about 3:30pm, she again went to the roof of her house and when Priyanka did not come there, she thought she might have slept. At about 4:00pm, on hearing the ring of her landline phone, she State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 8 of 103 came down but by the time she reached, the phone was disconnected. She waited for sometime in the gali outside her house. Her landline phone again rang after 510 minutes and it was a call made by accused Rahul. Rahul asked her to call Priyanka as she was not picking her phone. She told Rahul that balance was not sufficient in her phone. She went upstairs and knocked at the door of house of Priyanka but the door was not opened. Thereafter, she came down stairs and made a call to Rahul and told him that Priyanka was not opening the door. Then, Rahul asked her to break the door by saying "kahin usne goli na kha li ho, kahin usne fasi na laga li ho". Rahul also told her that there was a quarrel between him and Priyanka. She again went up stairs and tried to open the door but could not do so, then, their neighborers gathered there and were able to break the window glass with the help of one pipe. When they looked inside through the window, it was found that Priyanka was hanging with ceiling fan with the help of one chunni. Someone informed the police at number100, from her mobile phone no. 8447659942. The said mobile phone was found kept on 'charpai' lying on roof when she had gone to roof second time. Police and Ambulance reached at the spot.
17. PW4 has stated that her condition had deteriorated on seeing her. The door was opened by two three persons. Police officials then removed the dead body of Priyanka from the ceiling fan and she was taken to hospital.
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 9 of 103
18. PW4 has stated that on 04.09.2014, accused Monika came to her house and threatened her to change statement and in this regard she got lodged FIR No. 1142 in year 2014 in PS Uttam Nagar Mark 4 X.
19. PW4 has further stated that Priyanka told her that her father had given Rs. 27,000/ to purchase a fridge but her mother in law took the said amount and converted it in fixed deposit. On that she (PW4) asked Priyanka that she could use her fridge and kitchen whenever required. Whenever Priyanka received telephone calls of her mother in law and sister in law, after talking to them, she used to worry and got disturbed.
20. PW5 Sh. Pardeep Kumar has stated that deceased Priyanka was daughter of his sister in law (Saali) and on 17.03.2010, Priyanka was married to accused Rahul Nirwal. He had also attended the said marriage. Accused Narender, Smt. Rajesh, Monika and Rajeev are father in law, mother in law, sister in law & brother in law (Behnoi) respectively of the deceased. After about one year of marriage of deceased Priyanka, when they had brought her to Muzaffar Nagar after attending the Jagaran at house of accused Monika at Devband. At that time, Priyanka told him that her in laws' had not treated her well and that they used to beat her. She also told that they used to make dowry demands from her. When they did not send Priyanka to her matrimonial home, accused Rahul and other four accused persons came to Muzaffar Nagar and apologized for their behavior and then State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 10 of 103 they sent Priyanka with them. Thereafter, Rahul and Priyanka started residing at Delhi while other accused persons used to visit them occasionally. Priyanka did not meet him after she started residing at Delhi. On 03.03.2014, he came to know that Priyanka had expired. He did not come to Delhi on any point of time. Police met him at Muzaffar Nagar and recorded his statement.
21. During his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for State, PW5 has stated that accused persons had made demand for dowry at the time of marriage of Priyanka. He has further stated that one I10 car, household articles and jewellery items were given by the parents of Priyanka in the marriage. Priyanka had met him at her parental house after about four months of her marriage and had told him that her in laws namely her husband Rahul, father in law Narender, mother in law Smt. Rajesh, Sister in law Smt. Monika and Nandoi Rajeev used to misbehave with her, beat her and used to say " apne baap se paise mang kar la". He has further stated that the accused persons did not get treated her and she was got treated by her parents from Muzaffar Nagar.
22. PW5 has further stated that Priyanka used to say to him that her sister in law (Nanad) and Nandoi Rajeev used to interfere and used to say "akeli ladki hai, apne baap se paise la kar de".
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 11 of 103
23. PW6 Ms. Monika has stated that on 03.03.2014, at around 3:30pm, while she was going to drop her son, their neighborer Smt. Harpal Kaur was vigorously knocking at the door of the portion, where deceased Priyanka was residing. She was saying "priyanka darwaja kholo, darwaja kholo". After hearing the noise, she went there and asked Smt. Harpal Kaur as to what was the matter. She was told that Priyanka was not opening the door. She also knocked the door and tried to open the same but it could not opened. Thereafter, they pushed forcefully the door of the window and in this process, the glass of the window was broken. When they peeped throw the window, they saw that Priyanka was hanging with ceiling fan. By the time, other neighborers also gathered at the spot and they forcefully pushed the door and opened it. Thereafter, they informed the police. Police reached at the spot and removed the dead body from the ceiling fan. She checked the pulse of Priyanka but could not make out if she was dead or alive. Then, she was taken to hospital and she was also asked to accompany. At the hospital, Priyanka was declared brought dead.
24. PW7 Sh. Guru Datt has stated that one year ago, on the day of the incident, he heard noise from the house no. 180 situated in front of his house that 'fasi laga li, fasi laga li'. He reached at the spot. Several neighborers were already there. Police officials including photographer etc were also there. The police officials got the dead body removed from ceiling fan. He also helped in this process. The dead body was of lady State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 12 of 103 namely Priyanka. During his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, he has stated that the incident took place in the house of Smt. Harpal Kaur and deceased Priyanka was residing in the said house as a tenant.
25. PW8 Dr. Inderjeet Kalra has stated that he has been running a clinic in the area of Vikas Puri, situated at GG1/70A, Vikas Puri, Delhi and on 25.02.2012, one patient Mrs. Priyanka aged about 26 years came to his clinic. He examined her, she was having pain in her cervical region, loss of sleep, ' Ghabrahat', weight gain. She was advised some tests mentioned at point X on Ex 8/A i.e. blood sugar, CBC, Urine Routine, cholesterol and thyroid. She was prescribed medicine as mentioned at point Y on Ex PW8/A.
26. PW8 has further stated that on 28.02.2012, Mrs. Priyanka again came to his clinic with the report of Urine test. He examined her and gone through the report and thereafter she was prescribed medicine mentioned at point X on Ex PW 8/B.
27. PW8 has further stated that on 10.03.2012, Mrs. Priyanka visited his clinic and he examined her and prescribed the medicine mentioned in Ex PW 8/C. On 17.03.2012, she came to his clinic with the complaint of headache. He examined her and prescribed the medicine mentioned on Ex PW 8/D. State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 13 of 103
28. PW8 has stated that on 28.03.2012, she again came to his clinic with the complaint of pain in feet and lower back area. He examined her and prescribed the medicine mentioned on Ex PW 8/E.
29. PW8 has stated that on 21.04.2012 she again came to his clinic and he examined her and prescribed the medicine mentioned on Ex PW 8/F. On 29.05.2014, the above mentioned prescription given by him were produced by the police. He examined all the prescription and gave his report Ex PW 8/G. He prescribed medicine for mild depression and anxiety.
30. PW9 Dr. Ajay Sharma, Medical officer, DDU Hospital, Delhi has stated that on 04.03.2014, deceased Priyanka 28 years, female was sent by Sh. C.L. Meena Tehsildar/ Executive Magistrate, Patel Nagar, alongwith SI Kuldeep Singh for the medicolegal autopsy. He had conducted the postmortem vide No. 290/2014 and on external examination, found no fresh external injury present over the body of deceased except ligature mark. As per his opinion, the cause of death is due to asphyxia from ligature hanging and the manner of death is suicide. He prepared the postmortem report no. 290/2014(running into 4 pages) Ex PW 9/A.
31. PW10 HC Vijay Kumar has stated that on 04.03.2014, while he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as MHC(M), SI Kuldeep Singh handed over one pullanda sealed with the seal of KS pertaining to present case. He State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 14 of 103 deposited the said case property in the Malkhana and made an entry in register no. 19 at serial no. 4134 Ex PW 10/A. PW10 has further stated that so long the case property remained in his possession the same was not tampered with in any manner.
32. PW11 Mr. Mohit Kumar has stated that deceased Priyanka was his sister and her marriage was solemnized on 17.11.2010 with accused Rahul. At the time of the marriage, accused Rahul, his mother Smt. Rajesh Devi, his father Sh. Narender Singh and his sister Monika and her husband Rajeev demanded dowry. They had given I10 car, 1012 'tola' gold and other household articles. His father had given the list of the dowry articles to the police. The said list was signed by him also and was given to Inspector Mukesh Kumar. Photocopy of the said list was given to Inspector Mukesh Kumar and original list was given to Inspector O.P. Thakur, which is Ex PW 11/A alongwith details of bank account mentioned in Ex PW 11/B and treatment record, vide seizure memo is Ex PW 11/C.
33. PW11 has further stated that after the marriage, his deceased sister Priyanka went to her matrimonial house at Shamli, where all the above mentioned accused persons started harassing her mentally and also asked her to bring money from her parents and they used to say " tere baap ne diya hi kya hai, chaar bhaiyo me akeli ladki hai".
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 15 of 103
34. PW11 has further stated that on 12.02.2011, his mother had gone to the matrimonial house of accused Monika at Deoband alongwith other relatives and had a talk with his sister. His sister told his mother that the accused persons were harassing her and taunting her. She further told that they used to say "tere baap ne diya hi kya hai". Thereafter, his mother brought his sister to their house at Muzaffar Nagar. Thereafter, accused persons other than Rahul came to their house and requested to send his sister with them but they refused to send his sister with them due to their behavior towards her. Thereafter, after about one and half month all the accused persons came to their house and apologized for their behavior and undertook not to repeat the same in future and asked to send his sister with them. On this, his sister was sent with the accused persons.
35. PW11 has further stated that after taking his sister with them, accused Rahul and his parents did not take care of his sister properly and again started taunting her and asking her to bring money from her parents. Due to the behavior of the accused persons, the health of his sister started deteriorating. The accused persons did not use to provide proper treatment to his sister.
36. PW11 has stated that in December 2011, health of his sister became worse and he went to Shamli to meet her. He stayed at the matrimonial house of his sister at Shamli for about 15 days. During his stay, State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 16 of 103 his sister told him that the accused persons were not taking care of her and she was made to do all the household work despite her ill health. She further told him that all the jewellery items given to her in her marriage by her parents have been snatched by her mother in law i.e. accused Smt. Rajesh and her sister in law i.e. accused Monika. She has further told that the accused persons did not provide her even proper food. She further told him that the accused persons used to taunt her repeatedly by saying " tere baap ne diya hi kya hai, apne maa baap se paise mang kar lao". He personally observed the aforesaid behavior of the accused persons during his stay at the matrimonial house of his sister. During this period of about 15 days, his mother also visited the house of the accused persons at Shamli on one occasion and she returned after meeting his sister. Thereafter, he brought his sister to Muzaffar Nagar for treatment where she was treated by Dr. Prem Singh and she also remained admitted for one night at his Clinic. Accused Rahul came to see his sister in the said Clinic and he was scolded by the Dr. Prem Singh by saying that this is because of their behavior. When accused Rahul asked to take Priyanka with him, they straight way refused him and told him that they will not send her to Shamli. They also advised Rahul by saying that " isko khush rakhna chahte ho to lai jao, isko pareshan mat karo". On their advise, accused Rahul took his sister to Delhi and they started residing at A1/180, Uttam Nagar East, Delhi.
37. Parents of the accused Rahul did not give any household articles State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 17 of 103 except TV and Bed while they were shifting to Delhi. Accused Rajesh Devi and accused Narender Singh stated that all the household articles will be given by the parents of Priyanka. Thereafter, his parents had given to his sister 4 'tola' gold and other household articles. Thereafter, the things appeared good for sometime but actually nothing was good. Accused Monika and her husband Rajeev and parents of the accused Rahul started visiting the house of his sister at Delhi and again started harassing her and taunting her and asked to bring money from her parents and saying that "tere baap ne diya hi kya hai, chaar bhaiyo me akeli ladki hai".
38. PW11 has further stated that accused Rahul asked his sister to bring the money from his sister otherwise he will leave her at Shamli. His sister was afraid of going to Shamli and she even afraid of attending the calls coming from Shamli or from her sister in law i.e. accused Monika. They used to threat his sister on the phone also. Parents and sister of accused Rahul used to talk on the phone of accused Rahul, which was provided to him by his company. His father used to send him Delhi to the house of his sister with cash amount of Rs. 15,000/ 20,000/ after about every three months which he used to give to accused Rahul. When he used to give the money to accused Rahul, his sister used to become sad by saying that "mere papa kab tak paise denge". Accused Rahul and his parents and his sister Monika used to taunt his sister by saying that " tu banjh hai, banjar jameen hai". Parents of accused Rahul used to say his sister as to how long their son State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 18 of 103 shall be residing in rented houses and they asked her to ask her parents to arrange/purchase a flat for Rahul.
39. PW11 has further stated that in the month January 2013, he came to Delhi and was perusing his 6th semester of MCA Course. As his sister was depressed (pareshan thi) at that time, so he took a room on rent in the same house and on the same floor. His father used to give him Rs. 7000/, 8000/ per month, out of which he used to give about Rs. 5000/ per month to his sister and accused Rahul. A sum of Rs. 2000/ per month, out of above mentioned Rs. 5000/, was paid as rent to the landlord and remaining amount of Rs. 3000/ per month was used against his expenses like food etc. He was expected that after his shifting in the said rented house the visits of the parents, sister in law and her husband will be stopped but they kept on visiting the house of his sister and harassed her by repeating the old things.
40. PW11 has stated that on 12.02.2014, there was a 'Jagaran' in the house of accused Monika at Deoband. Accused Rahul and his sister Priyanka also went there to attend the 'Jagaran'. On 13.02.2014, he also went to house of accused Monika at Deoband at about 11:0012:00am and returned from there at about 2:003:00pm and when his sister returned to Delhi, she told him that her mother in law and sister in law had snatched, after beating her, the jewellery items, which were given to her by her parents State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 19 of 103 and did not allow her to wear the same in the 'Jagaran'. She further told him that accused Rahul, accused Narender and accused Rajeev had beaten her and asked her to ask his parents to purchase a flat for Rahul. PW11 has stated that when accused Rajeev had come to their house at Muzaffar Nagar for inviting them for 'Jagaran', he had stated to his parents that "ab to tumhara ladka bhi job per lag gaya hai, Rahul ko flat kab dila rahe ho". His mother told him that they will look into the matter.
41. PW11 has stated that on 01.03.2014, it was Saturday and there was a quarrel between accused Rahul and Priyanka in the morning. After accused Rahul had left for Shamli, his sister told him that accused Rahul wanted to take her with him at Shamli but she had refused as she was apprehensive of harassment by the accused persons if she goes to Shamli. She did not tell anything else to him.
42. PW11 has stated that on 02.03.2014, accused Rahul returned from Shamli and quarreled with his sister and when he came back in the evening, his sister told him that accused Rahul had again harassed her and quarreled with her and that he was saying that she should ask her parents to purchase a flat for him and that the parents of accused Rahul were also planing to stay with him.
43. PW11 has stated that he told his sister that he will talk to State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 20 of 103 parents on this and thereafter his sister got disturbed and stated that from where her father will arrange the money for flat. On 03.03.2014, in the morning hours, accused Rahul had left the house for his office before him. He alongwith his sister went to near by a 'Mandir' from where he purchased the 'Pooja Samagri' including the flowers. At around 9:00am, he dropped his sister Priyanka at the 'Mandir' and went away to his office. He used to call her after reaching the office but he does not remember if he made call to his sister on 03.03.2014 after reaching the office or not. At around 2:003:00pm, he received a call made by his sister Priyanka and she inquired if he had taken the lunch or not. She asked him not to come to house today as she will talk with accused Rahul about the quarrel (ladai jhagda). She further told him that parents and sister of accused Rahul were also coming. He asked her if there is any problem and she replied that there was no problem, however, it was cleared from the manner she was talking that there was some problem. After 25 minutes, he again called her and asked her to tell if there was any problem as she was sounding disturbed. She said that she will manage (mai dekh loongi). After 3:30pm, he received a call made by accused Rahul and he told him that Priyanka was not picking his phone and that he was feeling apprehensive (mujhe dar lag raha hai).
44. PW11 has stated that he told accused Rahul that she will pick the phone and she might be around. Thereafter he called his sister two three times but she did not attend the calls. Thereafter, he made call to his mother State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 21 of 103 and asked her if she had called her or had a talk with her. His mother told him that Priyanka was also not picking her call. After that he made call to his landlord two three times, call was attended by the land lady Smt. Harpal Kaur and she was sounding quite nervous and asked him to reach quickly at home. He again called but he does not know by whom the call was attended and the person on the other side asked him to reach quickly and a noise was coming from the back ground. He left his office at around 4:00pm and reached at the rented house, where police was present and there was a crowd. When he reached in the room, accused Rahul and the police were already present there. His sister was lying on the bed covered with a cloth. He had a talk with Rahul and told him that this had happened due to him and his family members. While the dead body was being taken by the police for postmortem. The police officials were giving him one 'Mala', one Ring, one artificial bangle (Kada) and 'chutki' of his sister. He took the same and threw on accused Rahul by saying that "ye saab saman apne ma baap or behan ko de dena unko yehi chahiye tha".
45. PW11 has stated that on 04.03.2014, he alongwith his parents reached at government hospital, where dead body of his sister was kept. Parents, sister and brotherinlaw of accused Rahul did not reach there. Statement of his father and his statement Ex.PW11/D bearing his signatures, were recorded. His statement was recorded at around 11.30 am. After the postmortem the dead body was handed over to his father as none of State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 22 of 103 the accused reached there. Statement of his mother was not recorded in the hospital as she was not in a position to speak at that time. In the evening, they cremated the dead body of his sister and none of the accused persons reached there.
46. PW11 has stated that on 11.03.2014, Inspector Mukesh Kumar came to his house at Mujjafarnagar and recorded the statement of his mother. They handed over the marriage card Ex.PW11/E, photographs of marriage Ex.PW11/F (colly, total 11 photographs) to the IO, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/G bearing his signatures. They also handed over the photocopy of details of the expenditure of the marriage of his sister and bank account details to the IO.
47. PW11 has stated that Inspector Mukesh Kumar directed them and the family members of the accused to come to the spot on 22.03.2014 and to take away the goods lying in the above mentioned tenanted rooms. On 22.03.2014, he alongwith his cousins came to Delhi and police handed over him goods including T.V, bed, Almiraha and other household articles including cloths of his sister. He donated all the articles except few cloths of his sister and went to Muzaffar Nagar with those cloths.
48. PW11 has stated that parents, sister and brother in law of accused Rahul were avoiding their arrest and they were pressurizing them to State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 23 of 103 settle the dispute through their relatives and on 31.03.2014, he made a complaint at P.S Uttam Nagar in this regard.
49. PW11 has stated that on 29.04.2014, he had given the treatment/medical paper Mark 11X1 to 11X13 of his sister and accused Rahul to the police vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/C. He had also given the copy of the complaint made to SHO Nai Mandi Muzaffar Nagar to IO, which is Mark 11X14.
50. PW11 has stated that on 15.05.2014, he handed over the copies of receipts/bills pertaining to Almiraha Mark 11X15, Gas connection Mark 11X16 and Mixure Mark 11X17, which were given to Rahul by his father on his demand, to the police, which were seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/H. In the month of January 2014, his father had given Rs. 27,000/ to accused Rahul for purchasing the fridge but his sister told him that the parents of the accused Rahul took the said money and got prepared FDR for the said amount.
51. PW11 has stated that on 16.05.2014, he handed over the original papers of the medical treatment pertaining to his sister and accused Rahul and list of the expenditure in the marriage of his sister Priyanka and details of the bank account with one letter Ex.PW11/I of his father addressed to the IO, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/C. State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 24 of 103
52. PW11 has stated that on 29.05.2014, IO of the case recorded the statement of Dr. I.J. Kalra and Dr. Prem Singh and he also recorded his statement.
53. PW11 has stated that on 30.05.2014 parents of accused Rahul i.e accused Narender and accused Smt. Rajesh Devi surrendered before the court. Next day he joined the investigation and alongwith police and both accused persons went to Shamli for recovery of Istridhan articles but nothing was recovered as the house was lying vacant. Accused persons told the IO that they had purchased the i10 car themselves out of their own funds. After 12 days, he handed over the CD of the marriage to the police in which his father could be seen handing over the keys of the i10 car to accused Narender.
54. PW11 has stated that on 04.09.2014, he received the call made by son of landlady Smt. Harpal and he demanded the phone number of Inspector O.P. Thakur, the IO of the case, who also told him that accused Monika had come at their house. In the evening, he made a call to land lady Smt. Harpal Kaur and on enquiry, she told that accused Monika had come to her house and asked her to change her statement in court and that Monika was saying "tumhara nash hoga".
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 25 of 103
55. PW11 has stated that they used to pay fee of the Dr. I.J. Kalra while his sister Priyanka was taking treatment. He believed that the accused persons namely Narender, Smt. Rajesh, Rahul, Monika & Rajeev are responsible for the death of his sister Priyanka. He had given his written statement Ex PW 11/J to police.
56. PW12 Sh. C.L Meena has stated that on 03.03.2014, while he was posted as Executive Magistrate Patel Nagar, in the evening, he was informed by the SDM Patel Nagar to visit DDU Hospital for inquest proceedings. On the next day i.e. on 04.03.2014, at about 10:00am, he reached at mortuary DDU hospital, where he met SI Kuldeep of PS Uttam Nagar, who had produced the brother and father of deceased Priyanka. He examined them and recorded the statement of Sh. Mohit Kumar Ex PW 11/D and same was read over and explained to him. Thereafter he also recorded the statement of Sh. Virender Singh, father of deceased Priayanka as Ex PW 12/A. He conducted the inquest proceedings. The application regarding request of postmortem is Ex PW 12/B. He filled up the form no. 25.35 (1) (B) Ex PW 12/C. The dead body was identified by Mohit and Virender Singh vide identification memo Ex PW 12/ D & Ex PW 12/E. After the postmortem on the body of deceased, dead body was released to father of deceased. Thereafter, he made endorsement Ex PW 12/F & Ex PW 12/G respectively on the statements of Mohit Kumar and Virender Singh and directed the SHO PS Uttam Nagar for further legal action as per law. State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 26 of 103
57. PW 13 SI Savita has stated that DD NO. 37A dated 03.03.2014 was lodged at around 4:17pm, on the basis of the information furnished by wireless operator that one lady hanged herself at Ho. NO. A1/180, Hastsal Road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi and after recording the said DD Ex PW13/A, the same was handed over to SI Kuldeep Singh.
58. PW14 Inspector Mukesh Kumar has stated that on 04.03.2014, while he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as inspector investigation, investigation of the present case was assigned to him. He received the copy of the FIR, rukka, statement of Mohit Kumar recorded by Executive Magistrate and seizure memo of the chunni, prepared by SI Kuldeep. He mentioned the FIR number and other case particulars on the seizure memo and he alongwith SI Kuldeep went to the spot i.e. H. No. A1/180, Hastsal road, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
59. PW14 has further stated that he inspected the spot i.e. first floor of the said house and prepared site plan Ex PW14/A at the instance of SI Kuldeep and land lady Smt. Harpal Kaur. He made inquiries from the landlady and other neighborers and recorded their statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
60. PW14 has stated that on 04.03.2014, accused Rahul was arrested from the aforesaid house vide arrest memo Ex PW14/B. After the State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 27 of 103 medical examination, accused Rahul Nirwal was brought to the police station and he was put behind the bars. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of SI Kuldeep. Next day accused Rahul was produced before the concerned court.
61. PW14 has further stated that during the investigation, after two days, he went to parental home of deceased situated at District Muzaffar Nagar. He recorded the statement of brother and parents of the deceased. Father of the deceased namely Virender Singh had produced the marriage card of the deceased Priyanka and accused Rahul Ex PW 11/E and 11 photographs Ex PW 11/F (colly), same were seized vide seizure memo Ex PW 11/G. He made effort to search the other accused persons at Deoband and Shamli. They were absconding. He got issued the NBWs against the accused Narender, Smt. Rajesh, Rajeev and Smt. Monika. During investigation, he collected the postmortem report.
62. PW14 has stated that on 20.04.2014, he was transferred from PS Uttam Nagar, so he handed over the case file to MHC(R) on direction of the SHO.
63. PW 15 Smt. Kela Devi is the mother of deceased, who has stated that her daughter Priyanka (since deceased) was married with accused Rahul on 17.11.2010 and at the time of the marriage, one car make i10, 12 State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 28 of 103 tolla gold jewellery and some silver jewellery and other household articles were given. Before 34 days from the marriage, accused Smt. Rajesh (mother in law), Narender (father in law), Rahul (husband), Monika (sister in law/nanad) and Rajeev (brother in law/nandoi) came to her house and demanded dowry i.e. cash amount but they refused to give the same. After the marriage of her daughter, Priyanka was not sent to their house for 3 months by the accused persons namely Smt. Rajesh and Narender. After the marriage, all the accused persons used to come to her house together and demanded money, some times accused Rajeev was not with them. They used to pay Rs. 15,00020,000/ to them and some times they refused to pay them.
64. PW15 has stated that in the month of February 2011, one jagaran was organized at the house of accused Monika at Deoband, U.P, where her daughter Priyanka came and they also went there to attend the Jagaran. Her daughter Priyanaka told them that his father in law had asked her to ask her father to pay some cash amount to him and also stated that "unhone diya hi kya hai, char bhaiyo me akeli ladki hai". She further told that when she refused to make call then accused Smt. Rajesh, Rahul, Narender, Monika threatened her by saying that "nahi kahegi to tujhe chhod denge". From Deoband, they took their daughter Priyanka to Mujjafar Nagar and refused to send her. Accused persons made repeated visits to their house and requested to send Priyanka with them. After one and half month, State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 29 of 103 all the accused persons came to their house and tendered apology. Thereafter, they sent her daughter Priyanka with them.
65. PW15 has stated that accused persons again started visiting their house and demanded money from them. In the month of December 2011, her daughter Priyanka fell ill. She alongwith her son namely Mohit went to see her at her matrimonial house at Shamli, where she asked Smt. Rajesh as to how her daughter was so much ill and weak. Smt. Rajesh said that Priyanka was not ill and she was pretending to be ill (dhong kar rahi hai). Thereafter, she returned to Mujjafar Nagar, while her son Mohit stayed at Shamli. Mohit informed her telephonically that Priyanka was having severe pain in her head and back, which was unbearable and proper treatment was not being provided to her by her in laws. He further told that accused Smt. Rajesh and Monika had snatched all the jewellery of her daughter after beating her. He informed her that he was bringing Priyanka to Mujjafar Nagar. Her son Mohit took Priyanka to Mujjafar Nagar. Priyanka was got examined from Dr. Prem Singh at Mujjafar Nagar. She was admitted in the nursing home of the said doctor for one day. Accused Rahul came to see her and made inquiries from Dr. Prem Singh about her illness. Dr. Prem Singh told Rahul that she was ill due to torture and harassment. Thereafter, Rahul returned. Accused Narender and Smt. Rajesh made several calls to them to send Priyanka to Shamli. As and when a phone call was received from Shamli, her daughter Priyanka used to start shivering. After State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 30 of 103 one and half month, accused Rahul came to their house and assured that "aage se aisa nahi hoga" but they refused to send her daughter at Shamli and said that she should be taken to Delhi by him. Thereafter, accused Rahul took Priyanka to Delhi.
66. PW15 has further stated that accused Rahul told them that his parents would not give any articles if he takes Priyanka to Delhi. After that they had given the gold jewellery of 4 tolla and some household articles including clothes etc to Priyanka. After some time, her daughter Priyanka informed them on phone that her mother in law and father in law were saying that they will not provide anything if she will stay at Delhi. After some time, accused Rahul took her daughter Priyanka at Shamli and Deoband and they started visiting Shamli and Deoband. Thereafter, mother in law, father in law, sister in law (nanad) and brother in law (nandoi) also started visiting the house of Priyanka at Delhi. As and when her daughter Priyanka visited Shamli, her father in law and mother in law asked her to make call to her parents for providing one flat in Delhi.
67. PW15 has stated that in the month of February 2014, a Jagaran was again organized at the house of Monika at Deoband, U.P. Accused Rajeev came to their house with invitation card of the said Jagaran and stated that " Rahul ko flat kab dilwa rahe ho, ab to tumhara ladka bhi naukari kar raha hai". Accused Rahul alongwith Priyanka reached at Deoband. Her State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 31 of 103 son Mohit also reached there. On 14.02.2014, accused Rahul took Priyanka at Shamli. From Shamli, on 16.02.2014, her daughter Priyanka was taken to Delhi by accused Rahul. As and when she talked her daughter on telephone, she felt that she was frightened (ghabrai hoi) and that she wanted to tell something. After one week, she told her telephonically that jewellery given to her by them on second occasion was snatched by her mother in law and sister in law/nanad. She further informed her that her mother in law and father in law had pressurized her to ask her parents to provide flat in Delhi as her father was going to retire and that on refusal she was beaten.
68. PW15 has stated that she told her that they will talk to Rahul. When they talked with Rahul, he told that everything will be all right after some time and that he will not take Priyanka to Shamli and Deoband again. On 01.03.2014, accused Rahul wanted to take Priyanka at Shamli but she refused. When she refused to go at Shamli, a quarrel took place between Rahul and Priyanka on this issue. Thereafter, Rahul went to Shamli alone, where accused Rahul was tutored by other accused persons that "ya to Priyanka Shamli me rahegi, ya Priyanka ke papa, rahul ko Delhi me flat dilwayenge". On returning to Delhi, accused Rahul asked Priyanka to ask her father to provide a flat in Delhi otherwise he will leave her at Shamli.
69. PW15 has stated that on 03.03.2014, accused Rahul went to his office. At around 10:00am, she made call to her daughter and inquire if State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 32 of 103 everything was all right, she told that "kuch thik nahi hai". At around 3:00pm, her daughter Priyanka made a call to her by the phone of her land lord and told that "Rahul do ghante se phone per ladai kar raha hai" and saying that "ya to apne mami papa se puch ke batao ki flat dilwa rahe hai ki nahi, mere mami papa aa rahe hai, tujhe shamli lai jayenge, mohit ko room per aane se mana kar do". Thereafter, she disconnected the phone by saying that phone call of Rahul was coming. After 1015 minutes, she made call to her daughter Priyanka but she did not reply. Thereafter, she made a call at the phone of landlord who told that a call was received from Rahul, who had asked the landlady to break open the door as Priyanka had either consumed sleeping pills or she had hanged herself. Thereafter, she heard some noises on the telephone as the call was not disconnected by the landlady. After about 2 minutes, landlady asked them to reach immediately if they wanted to see their daughter. Thereafter, they came to Delhi. All accused persons are responsible for the death of her daughter Priyanka.
70. PW16 Sh. Virender Singh being father of deceased has stated that his daughter Priyanka since deceased got married with the accused Rahul S/o Sh. Narender Singh on 17/11/2010 and at the time of marriage of his daughter, he had given one i10 car, 1012 tolas gold jewellery, some silver jewellery, some silver coin and other household articles to the accused persons. Accused Rahul was not doing any job at that time but he told them that he was doing job in the city Pune and getting salary of Rs 25000/ per State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 33 of 103 month. At the time of marriage, accused persons namely Rahul, Narender, Smt Rajesh, Monika and Rajiv had demanded dowry. After the marriage, his daughter told him on telephone that parents of Rahul and his sister used to harass and beat her and that they were asking her to bring money as dowry by say "chaar bhaiyo main akeli ladki hai". Accused Rahul, Narender, Rajesh and Monika used to demand money from him by saying "tumne shadi main paise nahi diye hai, chaar bhaiyo mein akeli ladki hai". As and when accused persons used to visit his house, he used to pay them Rs 1520 thousand. It happened 34 times. The accused persons did not allow his daughter to visit his house and as and when she came to his house, they used to take her back after short time.
71. PW16 has further stated that in February 2011, his wife, his sister in law (saali) and saadhu met Priyanka in Deoband at the house of accused Monika on the occasion of 'Jaagran' and his daughter told them that the accused persons namely Rahul, Narender, Smt Rajesh and Monika used to harass and beat her. From Deoband, his daughter was brought to Mujjafarnagar. They refused to send his daughter to her matrimonial house as the accused persons used to harass her. Thereafter all the accused persons visited their house on threefour occasions and apologized for their act. They, with the view to settle the marriage life of his daughter, sent her with them.
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 34 of 103
72. PW16 has further stated that in December 2013, his daughter Prinyanka fell ill. His son Mohit and his wife went to Shamli to see Priyanka at her matrimonial house. His daughter was brought to Mujjarfarnage. His daughter told that all her jewellery had been taken by the parents and sister of accused Rahul after beating her. She further told that neither proper food nor proper treatment was provided to her by the accused persons. He got his daughter treated at the clinic of Dr. Prem at Mujjafarnagar. Dr. Prem apprised them that his daughter has been harassed (paresan kya hua hai) by her in laws. During her stay at their house, as and when his daughter received a phone call from Rahul, Narender, Smt Rajesh and Monika, she used to start shivering (kapne lagti thi) and used to say "papa mujhe maar denge, main nahi jaungi". Thereafter accused Rahul came to their house and apologized and requested them to sent Priyanka with him. Thereafter at their insistence, accused Rahul brought Priyanaka to Delhi as they had refused to send her to Shamli. When Rahul started residing in Delhi with Priyanka, they gave 34 told gold jewellery and some silver jewellery to them as the earlier jewellery had already been snatched from Priyanka. The articles which were given to Rahul and Priyanka at the time of shifting to Delhi, was demanded from them by all the accused persons. During their stay in Delhi, accused Rahul demanded Rs 1520 thousand from him on 34 occasions and he sent the said money to him through his son Mohit. Accused Narender, Smt Rajesh, Monika and RaJiv started visiting the house of his daughter Priyanka at Delhi and again started State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 35 of 103 harassing her. In the meantime, all the accused persons started making a demand for a flat in Delhi from themselves.,
73. PW16 has stated that in January 2013, his son Mohit started residing on rent in a room adjoining the house of Priyanka, so that visits of other accused persons could be curtailed but the accused persons continued visiting the house of Priyanka.
74. PW16 has stated that in January/February 2013 accused persons demanded a sum of Rs 50,000/ and he sent a sum of Rs 27,000/ through Mohit. In February 2014, accused Rahul and Priyanka came at the house of accused Monika in Deoband for attending 'Jaagran'. At Deoband, the accused persons tortured his daughter and snatched the jewellery which was given to her by them on the second occasion. These facts were told to him by his daughter. Thereafter he talked to accused Rahul on telephone and warned him that he alongwith other accused persons had crossed the limits and that he was planning to make a complaint against them to police.
75. PW16 has stated that on 03/03/2014, his wife received a telephonic call from the landlady of Priyanka namely Smt Harpal Kaur and she "apni ladki ko dekna hai toh aa jao". Thereafter he, his wife and his brother Ashok left for Delhi. On 04/03/2014, his statement was recorded at DDU Hospital, Mortuary Ex PW12/A. He identified the dead body of his State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 36 of 103 daughter Priyanka in DDU Hospital and after the postmortem, he received the dead body of his daughter.
76. PW16 has further stated that on 11/03/2014, he handed over marriage card Ex PW11/E, photographs of marriage Ex PW11/F and details of goods/money arranged given in marriage to Delhi Police, who came to his house, on their demand, which were seized by them vide seizure memo Ex PW11/G. The list of articles given in marriage alongwith details of expenses and arrangement of money Ex PW1/B alongwith application Ex PW11/I was taken by the police.
77. PW16 has further stated that accused persons pressurized him to compromise the matter and in this regard, he made complaint at PS Nayi Mandi, Mujjafarnagar Mark PW16/X. His son Mohit made two complaints at PS Uttam Nagar Mark PW16/Y1 and Mark PW16/Y2. As accused persons were threatening him, he had written a letter Mark PW16/Z to his senior officer for his transfer.
78. PW 17 SI Kuldeep Singh has stated that on 03.03.2014, while he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar, he was performing emergency duty from 8:00am to 8:00pm and at around 4:15pm, he received DD No. 37A Ex PW13/DA, regarding the hanging of one lady at A1/180, Uttam Nagar, Hastsal Road. Upon receiving the said DD, he alongwith Ct. Parmod State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 37 of 103 reached at the spot, where landlady namely Smt. Harpal Kaur met them and told that her tenant namely Priyanka resident of first floor of her house, hanged herself. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Parmod went to the first floor of the said house where they found that glass of the door of window was already broken and door of the said room was slightly opened. Dead body of Priyanka was lying on the bed. He also found the half piece of the chunni was tied with the ceiling fan in the said room and other part of the said chunni was lying on the bed near the dead body of Priyanka. In the meantime, crime team reached there. Crime team inspected the spot and took the photographs of the spot. Information regarding death of Priyanka was given to SDM Patel Nagar. Parents of the deceased, who were residing in Mujjafar Nagar, U.P. were informed. Dead body of Priyanka was got sent to mortuary of DDU hospital through Ct. Parmod. He prepared the pullanda of the both parts of chunni and sealed with the seal of KS. It was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex PW 17/A bearing his signature. The said call was kept pending.
79. PW17 has further stated that on 04.03.2014, he alongwith the parents of the deceased went to the mortuary of DDU hospital. Sh. C.L. Meena Executive Magistrate also reached there and recorded the statement of Mohit and Virender Singh in respect of the identification of the dead body. On the directions of the Executive Magistrate, he filled up the inquest form Ex PW 12/C and thereafter request for the postmortem of the dead State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 38 of 103 body of Ms. Priyanka Ex PW 12/B was made by Sh. C.L. Meena to the concerned authority of DDU hospital. After the postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the father of deceased. Executive Magistrate C.L. Meena recorded the statement of Sh. Virender Singh, father of the deceased and handed over the same to him with endorsement for further legal action. The statement is Ex PW 12/A. He made an endorsement from portion C to C on Ex PW 12/A and handed over the same to duty officer for registration of the case. After registration of the present FIR, further investigation of the present case was assigned to Inspector Mukesh Kumar. He alongwith Inspector Mukesh Kumar and Ct. Parmod Kumar came to the spot. Inspector Mukesh Kumar made inquiries from the landlady Smt. Harpal Kaur and he prepared the site plan. He made inquiry from the other persons and recorded their statements. Inquiry in respect of the husband of deceased namely Rahul was made and at around 6:30pm, accused Rahul came there, IO arrested him vide arrest memo Ex PW 14/B and conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex PW 17/B. Accused Rahul was got medically examined through Ct. Parmod. Thereafter, he was put behind the bars. On 04.03.2014, he deposited the sealed pullanda of the chunni in the Malkhana.
80. PW17 has further stated that on 29.05.2014, he again joined the investigation. IO Inspector O.P. Thakur recorded his statement with regard to not recording the statement of mother of deceased on 04.03.2014. On 01.06.2014, on the directions of the SHO, the investigation of the present State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 39 of 103 case was assigned to him and on that day, he alongwith Ct. Indu Pawar and Ct. Roshni alongwith the accused Narender and Smt. Rajesh left Delhi for Shamli. They went to the house of accused Narender situated at Majara Road, Shamli, where he made search for the recovery of the dowry articles but nothing was found and he made a memo Ex PW17/C in this regard. Thereafter, they reached at the house of Monika (sister in law of deceased) situated at C15, Teacher colony, Deoband, Saharanpur, U.P, where he made search for the dowry articles but nothing was found. He prepared a memo Ex PW17/D in this regard. Thereafter, he returned to the house of accused Narender at Majara Road, Shamli, U.P. where he interrogated accused Rajeev and formally arrested him vide arrest memo Ex PW 17/E. Accused Rajeev was released on bail as per directions of the Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter, they returned to Delhi. After the medical examination of accused Narender Kumar and Smt. Rajesh, they were put behind the bars. On 02/06/2014, investigation of the present case was handed over to Inspector O.P Thakur on the directions of the SHO.
81. PW17 has stated that he recorded the statement of witnesses. He identified the pieces of chunni as collectively Ex PW17/P1 as recovered from the room of the deceased, where the dead body was found.
82. PW18 Dr Prem Singh has stated that he prepared prescription Ex PW18/A and according to the same, on 12/01/2012, one patient namely State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 40 of 103 Priyanka aged 26 years with history of family stress, having acute severe headache and vomiting was admitted in the clinic in the night. He has further stated that there was no neurological deficit detected. Patient was depressed. He gave pain killer, anti vomiting and sedative to patient.
83. PW 19 HC Ajit Singh has stated that on 11.03.2014, while he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar, he alongwith IO Inspector Mukesh Kumar went to the house of parents of the deceased at Mujjafar Nagar, U.P. Father of the deceased namely Sh. Virender Singh had given 11 photographs and marriage card of the deceased to the IO and IO seized the same vide seizure memo Ex PW 11/G. From the Mujjafar Nagar, they went to Shamli at the house of accused persons but none of the accused persons were found there. Thereafter, they returned to Delhi.
84. PW20 Inspector O.P. Thakur has stated that on 21.04.2014, when he was posted at P.S Uttam Nagar as ATO, investigation of the present case was assigned to him. He had gone through the case file. Brother of deceased namely Mohit had given one application Ex.PW11/I of Virender Singh, father of deceased, with enclosures of the documents i.e list of articles of marriage Ex.PW11/A, list of expenditure on marriage Ex.PW 16/DA and source of the money Ex.PW11/B. Mohit also provided the treatment/medical document of deceased Priyanka and accused Rahul Ex.PW8/G and Ex.PW18/A and Mark 11/X2 to X7. He seized the said State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 41 of 103 documents with the application vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/C. He recorded the statement of landlady Smt. Harpal Kaur. Prior to this, Mohit Kumar also handed over written submissions with the treatment documents of accused Rahul and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW20/A.
85. PW20 has further stated that during the investigation, search for other accused persons namely Smt. Rajesh and father in law of deceased was made as they were absconding. He got issued process u/s 82 Cr.P.C qua aforesaid accused persons against whom NBWs had already been issued. On 15.05.2014, Mohit Kumar also handed over him bills of the almiraha, gas connection document and warranty card of the mixer grinder and he seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW11/H. During the investigation, he recorded the statement of Mohit and other relevant witnesses. Since accused Rahul was in judicial custody, he filed the chargesheet against accused Rahul on 30.05.2014. Accused Monika and Rajeev were on anticipatory bail while accused Smt. Rajesh and Narender Singh were absconding and investigation qua them was still pending.
86. PW20 has further stated that on 30.05.2014 itself, accused Narender Singh and Smt. Rajesh surrendered before the Ld. MM and they were arrested vide memo Ex.PW20/B & Ex.PW20/C respectively bearing his signature on each. He interrogated both the accused persons and recorded their disclosure statement Ex.PW20/D and Ex.PW20/E State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 42 of 103 respectively. He got three days police remand of both the accused persons. Both accused persons were taken to police station and thereafter their medical examination were got conducted. On the direction of the SHO, he handed over the custody of both the accused persons as well as case file to the SI Kuldeep Singh for carrying out investigation in U.P.
87. PW20 has stated that on 01.06.2014, SI Kuldeep further handed over the case file of the present case and custody of both the accused persons to him alongwith the documents prepared by him during investigation in U.P. During investigation conducted by SI Kuldeep, he formally arrested another accused namely Rajeev Kumar.
88. PW20 has further stated that during further course of investigation, he collected the certified copies of the details of the bank account of deceased Priyanka, her father and her uncle from different banks of U.P. (running in 53 pages including Ex PW 21/A, 21/B, 21/F, 21/E, 21/D, 21/C) on 03.06.2014 from Ct. Indu who had given the same to him after collecting from the different banks, vide seizure memo Ex PW 20/F.
89. PW20 has further stated that on 02.06.2014, ASI Bhoop Singh produced two CD, which were given him by Sh. Madan Pal, real paternal uncle of deceased Priyanka and he seized the same vide memo Ex PW 20/G. Aforesaid two CDs are Ex PW 20/H. He also collected the CDR & State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 43 of 103 CAF of five mobile numbers of deceased, her husband, Monika, Rajeev & Smt. Rajesh running in 63 pages including four certificate u/s 65 Indian Evidence Act and the same are collectively Ex PW 20/J. These documents were received by him in response of notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C. from concerned service provider. He recorded the statements of witnesses u/s 161 Cr.P.C.
90. PW20 has further stated that during the investigation, he collected the photographs from the Mobile Crime Team, West District. After completion of investigation, he prepared the supplementary charge sheet and filed the same on 25.07.2014 before the Ld. MM through SHO concerned.
91. PW21 Sh. Sunil Kumar, Senior Manager of Canara Bank has stated that the original account form of account number 5062 is in the name of Virender Singh, account no. 9170 is in the name of Ms. Priyanka and account no. 2602101012322 is in the name of Ashok Kumar. The Photocopy of the account opening form of Virender Singh is Ex PW 21/A which bears the seal of the Bank and bears the signature of Sh. Parmod Kumar Gupta on each page. The bank account statement of Ac No. 5062 (running into 2 pages) also bears the seal of the bank and signature of Sh. Parmod Kumar Gupta on each page and the same is Ex PW 21/B.
92. PW21 has further stated that the account opening form (running into six pages) of Priyanka is Ex PW 21/C, which bears the seal of the Bank State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 44 of 103 and bears the signature of Sh. Parmod Kumar Gupta on each page. The certified copy of bank account statement of Ac No. 9170 (running into 2 pages) also bears the seal of the bank and signature of Sh. Parmod Kumar Gupta on each page and same is Ex PW 21/D.
93. PW21 has stated that the account opening form of Ashok Kumar is Ex PW 21/E (running into 9 pages) which bears the seal of the Bank and bears the signature of Sh. Parmod Kumar Gupta on each page. The certified copy of bank account statement of Ac No. 2602101012322 (running into 4 pages) also bears the seal of the bank and signature of Sh. Parmod Kumar Gupta on each page and the same is Ex PW 21/F.
94. PW22 Sh. Parvinder Singh, Senior Manager, PNB has stated that the account opening form of the account no. 0333000300376408 of one Virender Singh alongwith KYC (running in 10 pages) are collectively Ex PW 22/A. According to the certified copy of the statement of aforesaid account from 18.03.2009 till 23.11.2016, the last transaction in this account was taken place on 03.03.2014 (running into four pages) and the same are collectively Ex PW 22/B.
95. PW 23 Sh. Roshan Baniwal, Assistant Manager, PNB has stated that according to the statement of the account of account no. 0578000100146604 of Madan Pal S/o Lt. Sh. Kalu Ram from 03.02.2008 till State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 45 of 103 09.10.2016 (running into 5 pages) bearing signatures of Branch Manager Sh. Amit Gupta on each page and same is Ex PW 23/A.
96. PW23 has further stated that according to the statement of the account of account no. 0578000100146677 in the name of Ram Kumar & Soraj Singh from 03.02.2008 till 18.10.2016 (running into 6 pages) bearing signatures of Branch Manager Sh. Amit Gupta on each page and same is Ex PW 23/B.
97. PW24 Sh. Saurabh Aggarwal, Nodal officer Vodafone has stated that mobile phone number 8447534123, prepaid connection was issued to one Rahul son of Sh. Narender r/o 263, Pat Mahaladara, Pura2, Shamli, Mujjafar Nagar, U.P. on the basis of his Voter I card. Attested photocopy of the customer application form which bears the photographs of Rahul, is Ex PW 24/A, which bears signature of the customer Rahul and photocopy of the Voter Icard attached with the customer application form is Ex PW 24/B. Both also bearing his signatures and seal and call detail record of above mentioned mobile phone for the period of 01.02.2014 to 31.03.2014 (running into five pages) is Ex PW 24/C, which bear his signatures and seal.
98. PW24 has further stated that he had issued certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act Ex PW24/D in respect of the CDR of the aforesaid State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 46 of 103 mobile phone and it was issued on the same day, when the CDR of the mobile phone was taken out and printed out from his computer system.
99. PW24 has further stated that mobile phone number 9761483026, prepaid connection was issued to one Rajeev Kumar son of Sh. Harpal Singh r/o H. No. C16, teacher colony, Deoband, Saharan Pur, U.P. on the basis of his Ration card. Attested photocopy of the customer application form, which bears the photographs of Rajeev is Ex PW 24/E1, which bears signature of the customer Rajeev and photocopy of the ration card attached with the customer application form is Ex PW 24/E2. Both also bearing his signatures and seal. Attested copy of the Call detail record of above mentioned mobile phone for the period of 01.02.2014 to 31.03.2014 (running into five pages) is Ex PW 24/C. All pages bear his signatures and seal.
100. PW24 has further stated that he had issued certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act in respect of the CDR of the aforesaid mobile phone. The said certificate is Ex PW 24/D and it was issued on the same day when the CDR of the mobile phone was taken out and printed out from his computer system.
101. PW25 Sh. Sunil Kumar, Nodal officer, MTNL has stated that as per original customer application form Ex PW25/A of mobile number State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 47 of 103 9868393775, the said postpaid connection was issued to one company namely TCIL, TCIL Bhawan, Greater KailashI, Delhi48. Attested photocopy of the customer application form is Ex PW 25/A which bears signature of the Mukesh Chand Sharma, Manager (Admin), TCIL. The said form also bears his signatures and seal. The call detail record of above mentioned mobile phone for the period of 01.02.2014 to 31.03.2014 (running into 24 pages) is Ex PW 25/B. All pages bear his signatures.
102. PW25 has further stated that he had issued certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act Ex PW25/C in respect of the CDR of the aforesaid mobile phone and it was issued on the same day, when the CDR of the mobile phone was taken out and printed out from his computer system. He had also given the tower location chart of MTNL, pertaining to the area of Delhi and NCR (national capital region) and the same is Ex PW 25/D. All pages bear his signatures.
103. Statement of accused persons recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein accused persons wished to lead defence evidence.
104. In defence, accused persons have examined three witnesses in defence I.e DW1 Sh. Vikas Choudhary, DW2 Sh. Sandeep Singh Gill and DW3 Ms. Amita.
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 48 of 103
105. DW1 Vikas Chaudhary has stated that he knows Rahul Nirwal from his college time, when he was pursuing engineering. When he was in Noida, at that time, he had helped Rahul Nirwal to take flat on rent. He used to visit him at that rented flat situated at Uttam Nagar. Rahul Nirwal and his wife were having very cordial relationship. His native place and Rahul Nirwal native place was at Shamli. Rahul Nirwal and his wife generally used to go with him in his car to Shamli. He did not find any problem in their relation. Rahul Nirwal and his wife were usually looking very happy, when came back from Shamli. Many a times, he had found Priyanka insisting Rahul to go to his native place over the weekend. Priyanka, wife of Rahul, once or twice discussed with his wife regarding not having any kid.
106. DW2 Sandeep Singh Gill has stated that he knows accused Rahul Nirwal through Vikas Chaudhary from his college time, when he was doing his B.Tech. degree from Aurangabad, Maharashtra. When he was employed in Delhi, during that time he received a call from Rahul Nirwal regarding arrangement of a room as he had to shift from Pune to Delhi. At that time, he was residing at Uttam Nagar. The adjacent room of his residence was vacant at that time. He asked Rahul Nirwal to come to Delhi to talk regarding the said room. Rahul Nirwal told him that he alongwith his family had to shift to Delhi. Rahul Nirwal had asked him if the locality of the rented premises was a secured area and he replied him in affirmative. Thereafter, Rahul Nirwal alone shifted to the said room and he cleaned the State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 49 of 103 said room and arranged all household articles including double bed, Almirah, Gas stove, etc. After about one month, wife of Rahul Nirwal also shifted to the said room. Thereafter, he lived in his above said room for about 6 months and he did not find any problem in their relation. Rahul was very caring towards his wife Priyanka and Priyanka was also very nice. At their insistence, he used to take meal with them so long he stayed there. After about 6 months, he was transfered to Punjab so he vacated his rented premises and thereafter, said premises was taken on rent by Rahul Nirwal for his brotherinlaw namely Mohit.'
107. On 26/04/2018, Sh. Vivek Sharma ld. Counsel for all accused made statement regarding closing of defence evidence and dropped DW2, who was not available for his cross examination due to his illness. In view of the same, deposition of DW2 recorded cannot be considered in any manner.
108. DW3 Amita has stated that she maternal aunt (Mami) of accused Rahul Nirwal. She had attended the marriage of Rahul Nirwal. She went to the house of Rahul Nirwal 34 days prior to the marriage of Rahul Nirwal. The family atmosphere was very conducive. There was no demand of dowry by accused persons. The family of Rahul Nirwal was well of and there was never any desire for any dowry in the marriage of Rahul Nirwal. On 23 occasions, he gave marriage proposal for his known family but the parents of Rahul always used to say that they wanted beautiful and educated State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 50 of 103 girl and did not want any dowry at all. Since Priyanka was beautiful girl that is why she was accepted by the family of Rahul Nirwal for marriage. The i 10 car was brought in the family of Rahul Nirwal prior to marriage. There was no occasion for the car to be given by the parents of Priyanka. Parents of Rahul Nirwal used to say that they would bring the bride in their own car. In the month of December 2013, Priyanka met her at Shamli and he asked her as to why she was sad. She told him "Main issliye paresan hu, kee hamari kismat me shyad bacha nahi hai". He made her understood by saying that even the child was born to her motherinlaw after 56 year of her marriage and she would also be blessed with a child. Thereafter, she did not meet her.
109. I have heard ld. Addl. PP for State assisted by ld. Counsel for complainant, ld. Counsel for accused persons and gone through the record of this case.
110. It is contended by ld. Counsel for accused persons that material witnesses of this case have improved their testimony to a great extent and they have miserably failed to prove any allegations against the accused persons including any harassment to deceased, demand of dowry, any harassment soon before death on any account and misappropriation of the dowry articles etc. It is further contended that there are major contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses. It is further contended that there are State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 51 of 103 many other important fatal lapses in prosecution, which falsify the case of the prosecution. The allegations of dowry demand by the PWs are absolutely vague, bald and general and are not at all specified as to which accused demanded what and when. It is further contended that there is not even a single incoming call from any accused to the deceased at any point of time.
111. It is further contended that as per PW4, somebody informed the police at no. 100 from her mobile phone no 8447659942, but no witness has been examined either to prove the call to PCR or reaching of PCR party at the spot. It is further contended that no police official has seen the dead body hanging and no witness has been examined by prosecution with respect to cutting of chunni. No chance prints were lifted and no articles like stool, chair or bucket etc were found in the room at place of incident, which could have been used by the deceased for allegedly hanging herself. It is further contended that no scaled site plan was prepared otherwise it would have proved that hanging was not possible in the given circumstances. It is further contended that no investigation from the angle of murder and no mobile phone of deceased and landlady was seized. It is further contended that no CCTV footage was collected from the entry place to the building or from the stair case leading to upper floors. It is further contended that place of incident/scene of crime was never protected. It is further contended that list of dowry articles Ex PW11/A, Ex PW11/B and Ex PW16/DA are forged, fabricated and concocted as all three lists are prepared in one ink and on State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 52 of 103 joint pages despite the claim that one of it was prepared at the time of marriage and another at the time of handing over it to the IO after the death of accused. It is further contended that no certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act for computer generated statement of account of Virender Singh and Priyanka, Madan Pal, Ram Kumar and Swaraj Singh have been given. It is further contended that none of the witness has proved as to who was using phone no. 9868393775 issued in the name of one company namely TCIL.
112. In support of his contentions, ld. Counsel for accused persons has relied upon the following judgments:
1. Har Devi & Ors vs State of Delhi, Crl. A. No. 76/2001 decided on 15/01/2010 High Court of Delhi;
2. State vs Sohan Lal & Ors., Crl. L.P No. 63/2011 decided on 01/04/2011 High Court of Delhi;
3. Brij Mohan vs State, Crl. A. No. 163/2001 decided on 18.05.2011 High Court of Delhi;
4. Jaishree & Ors vs State, Crl. A. No. 1382/13 decided on 19/04/2017 High Court of Delhi;
5. Ramesh Kumar vs State of Delhi & Ors, Crl. A. No. 395/2000 decided on 27/10/2016 High Court of Delhi.
113. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for complainant has contended State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 53 of 103 that accused persons were specifically put questions in their statement u/s 313, Cr.P.C about their complacency in the alleged offences. The Hon'ble Court in u/s 313 Cr.P.C put some specific questions to the accused persons and the stand of the accused are contradictory, which also support the case of prosecution. Same are as under: Q9 It is in evidence against you the mother of Priyanka brought Priyanka to her parental house where all the accused persons except you Rahul Nirwal visited the house of Priyanka and requested to sent Priyanka with them, to which family of Priyanka refused due to you people past bnag behaviour towards her but after one and half month you all visited to parental house of Priyanka and apologized for your behavior and undertook not to repeat the same in future and only then Priyanka was sent by her parents with you. What you have to say?
A. In reply, accused Rahul has stated that Priyanka had gone to her parental home the very next day of Jagran. But she had gone in a usual manner as there was no quarrel/dispute between her and his family members. She was sent back to Shamli when her family members went to her parental place.
In reply, accused Monica has stated that it is incorrect. Priyanka has gone straight away to her matrimonial home after attending Jagran at her place. Neither they had gone to parental home of State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 54 of 103 Priyanka to take her back as alleged nor they have apologized there.
In reply, accused Narender, Rajeev and Smt Rajesh have stated that it is incorrect (they have completely denied).
Q39. It is in evidence against you that on 01/03/2014, you have quarrelled with Priyanka on the issue of visiting to Shamli to which she refused and thereafter you alone left for Shamli. What you have to say?
A In reply, accused Rahul has denied the contents and stated that there was no quarrel between him and Priyanka. It was already decided that he would go alone to Shamli as his mother was ill and he has to bring some food items from Shamli. Priyanka was not supposed to go and therefore, there was no question of any quarrel on her point of going to Shamli.
In reply, accused Monica has stated that Rahul has visited Shamli on 01/03/2014 but she had no knowledge about the quarrel taken place between Rahul and Priyanka.
In reply, accused Narender has stated that Rahul had come alone to Shamli but it is incorrect that he had quarreled with Priyanka. State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 55 of 103 Further other accused namely Smt Rajesh and Rajeev have denied the same due to want of knowledge.
114. It is further contended that the accused never came forward with any solid or crediable defence. That witness lead by the defence failed to disprove the case of prosecution. Mere suggestions put to the prosecution witnesses cannot disprove the cases of prosecution. The prosecution case as well as the defence case has to stand on its own legs as observed by the Apex Court in various judgments. One of such judgment is Bhagirath vs State of M.P and Narayan Singh vs State.
115. It is further contended that the prosecution has successfully established the sequence of events as narrated in the chargesheet and substantially proved through its witnesses and evidences, the culpability of the accused persons in the alleged offences.
116. It is further contended that the accused Rahul Nirwal is the best person to explain the circumstances as he was the last person talking to the deceased. Thus in the light of Section 106, the circumstances as well as circumstantial evidence including but limited to the phone call prior to the death of the deceased are sufficient enough to go against the accused no. 1 Rahul Nirwal. Similarly, accused Rajesh was also in touch with the deceased prior to her death and continuously calling and harassing the deceased. State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 56 of 103 Same with the accused Monica, who in conspiracy and connivance with other accused persons had played significant role and has been conduit in the act of harassment and torture conferred upon the deceased when she was attending the jagran at Deoband alongwith her husband Rahul and other accused persons namely Rajesh, Narender, Rajeev and Monica.
117. It is further contended that even the conduct of the accused persons after the death of the deceased was very doubtful. Neither accused Rahul visited to the spot nor he came forward to claim the dead body under the conspiracy with all the accused persons. Even after the arrest of the accused no. 1, remaining accused absconded, which is evident from the call records. In their own admission, they have stated that they were at one place on the day of incident and avoided investigation and destroyed all the evidences and the dowry articles. Accused Rajesh and Narender only surrendered after the proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C were initiated against them. It was pertinent to mention here that the I10 car, which was given in dowry is still not traceable. Accused Rahul and Rajiv were continuously in touch over phone call and decided to absconded under preplanned strategy. Further accused Smt Rajesh and Narender were also in touch with accused Rahul, Rajeev and Monica.
118. It is further contended that the prosecution has established that all the accused persons under common intention have demanded dowry from State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 57 of 103 the deceased and her family members and inspite of her family members had meeting the demand of dowry, further demands were raised till her death and the torture and harassment was continued to the deceased.
119. It is further contended that prosecution has been successful in establishing the fact that all the accused persons have instigated and abated the deceased to end her life by committing suicide by imparting continuous harassment, demand and torture for dowry.
120. It is further contended that it is established law that documentary evidence would prevail over oral evidence in terms of Section 91 of Evidence Act. The prosecution has successfully proved the documentary evidence for dowry demand and acceptance of dowry articles by the accused persons and harassment attributed to the deceased to end her life by committing suicide.
121. It is further contended that in the light of above submissions, facts and evidences, the culpability of the accused persons is made out. Therefore, all the accused persons for the said act are liable to be punished u/s 304 B, 498 A r/w 34 IPC.
122. This case was registered on the statement of Sh. Virender Singh under Sections 498A/304B/406/34 of IPC against the accused persons. State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 58 of 103 During the course of investigation, site plan was prepared. Crime team inspection report was obtained. Statement of Mohit Kumar was also recorded. Two pieces of chunni were recovered and seized in this case. Photographs of marriage and card were taken into possession. According to the postmortem report, cause of death was due to asphyxia from ligature hanging and manner of death was suicide. Lists of dowry articles were also given. Medical documents of deceased Priyanka were also taken into possession. Accused persons were arrested in this case.
123. According to the statement of Virender Singh, on which this case has been registered, the allegations have been made against husband, motherinlaw, fatherinlaw, brotherinlaw and sisterinlaw of deceased. It is alleged that sisterinlaw Monica and brotherinlaw Rajiv Kumar demanded dowry at the time of marriage. After marriage, Virender Singh received phone call from his daughter Priyanka, who told that her husband, her father in law, mother in law, sister in law used to torture her and used to beat her and demanded dowry. After marriage, dowry was demanded by making calls to him. His daughter remained in her in laws house for one year and thereafter she and her husband shifted to Delhi. His son Mohit Kumar was also residing with his sister. Even after shifting to Delhi, accused Rahul and his family members used to torture his daughter for dowry. Once on 12/02/2014, when his daughter had gone to Jagran at her sister in law's house, she was beaten by accused Rahul, her mother in law, father in law State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 59 of 103 and sister in law Monica.
124. Accused persons have been charged for the offences u/s 498/34 IPC and 304B/34 of IPC, whereas accused Rahul Nirwal (husband), Narender Singh (father in law) and Smt Rajesh (mother in law) have also been charged for the offence u/s 406/34 IPC.
125. To prove these allegations, Virender Singh has been examined as PW16. He has deposed the facts about the marriage and dowry given in the marriage. He has stated that at the time of marriage, accused persons demanded dowry. After the marriage, his daughter told him on telephone that parents of Rahul and his sister used to harass and beat her and that they were asking her to bring money as dowry and also used to taunt "chaar bhaiyo main akeli ladki hai" and she was told "tumne shadi main paise nahi diye hai, chaar bhaiyo mein akeli ladki hai". As and when accused persons used to visit his house, he used to pay them Rs 15000/ to 20000/ and it happened 34 times. Accused persons did not allow his daughter to visit her parental house.
126. PW16 has further stated that in February 2011, his wife, his sister in law (saali) and saadhu met Priyanka in Deoband at the house of accused Monika on the occasion of Jaagran and at that time, his daughter told them that the accused persons have harassed and beat her. From State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 60 of 103 Deoband, his daughter was brought to Mujjafarnagar. They refused to send his daughter to her matrimonial house. Thereafter all the accused persons visited their house on threefour occasions and apologized for their act. So, to settle the marriage life of his daughter, they sent their daughter with them.
127. PW16 has further stated that in December 2013, his daughter Prinyanka fell ill. His son Mohit and his wife went to Shamli to see Priyanka at her matrimonial house. His daughter was brought to Mujjafar Nagar. His daughter told that all her jewellery has been taken by the parents and sister of accused Rahul after beating her. She further told that she was neither provided proper food nor proper treatment by the accused persons.
128. PW16 has stated that during the stay of his daughter at their house, whenever his daughter used to receive a call from accused persons, she used to start shivering and used to say "papa mujhe maar denge, main nahi jaungi". Thereafter accused Rahul came to their house and apologized and requested them to sent Priyanka with him and at their insistence, both Rahul and Priyanaka shifted to Delhi. They gave 34 tollas gold jewellery and some silver jewellery to them as the same were demanded by the accused persons. During their stay in Delhi, accused Rahul demanded Rs 15 20 thousand from him on 34 occasions and he sent the said money to him through his son Mohit. Accused Narender, Smt Rajesh, Monika and Rajiv started visiting the house of his daughter Priyanka at Delhi and again started State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 61 of 103 harassing her.
129. PW16 has further stated that in January 2013, his son Mohit started residing on rent in a room adjoining the house of Priyanka, so the visits of accused persons could be curtailed but the accused persons continued visiting the house of deceased Priyanka.
130. PW16 has further stated that in JanuaryFebruary 2014, all accused persons demanded Rs 50,000/ again and he sent a sum of Rs 27,000/ through Mohit.
131. In the cross examination, PW16 has been confronted with statement Ex PW12/A and Ex PW16/DA, where most of the facts are not recorded.
132. It is contended by ld. Counsel for accused persons that witnesses has made improvements to prove the offences.
133. It is further contended by ld. Counsel for accused persons that PW16 has admitted that no complaint was made by him regarding demand of dowry against the accused persons before death of his daughter. Even he did not hand over the bill issued by goldsmith regarding conversion of jewellery items to the IO. However, witness has denied the suggestion that State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 62 of 103 no jewellery was got converted. It has come in the cross examination that I 10 car was purchased by them against cash payment. However, documents of the car were prepared in the name of accused Rahul and there is no cash receipt in respect of the same. However, witness has denied the suggestion that I10 car was purchased by father of accused Rahul after obtaining loan against his pension on installments.
134. It is also contended by ld. Counsel for the accused persons that Priyanka could not conceive, heence she was under depression and committed suicide. She was not harassed or tortured on account of demand of dowry. However, witness has denied the suggestion that he was aware that due to some medical problem, his daughter Priyanka could not conceive and was also aware that accused Rahul was having some medical problem due to which Priyanka was unable to conceive or that such facts were told to him by his wife by saying that Priyanka had told these facts to her.
135. PW16 has been further cross examined on the aspect that Mohit used to have food with Priyanka and Rahul. However, witness has denied the suggestion that Mohit was residing with Priyanka and Rahul. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has contended that this was also cause for disturbance to Priyanka and Rahul as due to frequent presence of Mohit, they were not getting personal time for each other.
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 63 of 103
136. PW16 has also been cross examined on the aspect that list of dowry articles Ex PW11/B, Ex PW11/B and Ex PW11/DA have been prepared in a single go and then were handed over to the IO.
137. It is further contended that witness has admitted that expenses of marriage are not shown separately in the income tax returns. However, witness has denied the suggestion that no expenses were incurred in marriage.
138. In reference to offence u/s 406/34 of IPC, it is suggested that all the articles from the house of Priyanka were taken by her family members and were not donated. It is also suggested to the witness that entire expenses of his son Mohit for staying at Delhi were being borne by accused Rahul. It is also suggested that on 03/03/2014, the family members of deceased had no grievance against the accused persons but thereafter in connivance and conspiracy with his brother Madan and local police officers, previous statement was destroyed and fresh false and fabricated statement was recorded.
139. In view of examination in chief and cross examination of PW16, although he has been confronted with most of the examination in chief, it has been proved that Priyanka was harassed and tortured on account of demand of dowry. Not only this, Rs 15,000/0 to Rs 20,000/ were given State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 64 of 103 on 34 occasions to accused Rahul on demand by Mohit.
140. Another witness is PW 15 Smt. Kela Devi, who is the mother of deceased Priyanka. She has stated that 34 days before the marriage, accused Smt. Rajesh (mother in law), Narender (father in law), Rahul (husband), Monika (sister in law/nanad) and Rajeev (brother in law/nandoi) came to her house and demanded dowry i.e. cash amount but they refused to give the same. After the marriage, all the accused persons used to visit her house and used to demand money. They used to pay Rs. 15,000/ to 20,000/ to them and some times they refused to pay them.
141. She has further stated that in the month of February 2011, one jagaran was organized at the house of accused Monika at Deoband, U.P, where her daughter Priyanka had gone. They also went there to attend the Jagaran. There her daughter Priyanaka told them that her father in law was demanding some cash amount by saying "unhone diya hi kya hai, char bhaiyo me akeli ladki hai". She had further told that when she refused to make call then accused persons threatened her by saying that "nahi kahegi to tujhe chhod denge". From Deoband, they took their daughter Priyanka to Mujjafar Nagar and refused to send her. After one and half month, all the accused persons came to their house and tendered apology and thereafter, they sent Priyanka with them.
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 65 of 103
142. She has further stated that accused persons again started visiting their house and demanding money from them.
143. She has further stated that Mohit informed her telephonically that Priyanka was having severe pain in her head and back and proper treatment was not being provided to her by her in laws. He has further told that accused Smt. Rajesh and Monika had snatched all the jewellery of her daughter after beating her. He informed her that he was bringing Priyanka to Mujjafar Nagar. Her son Mohit took Priyanka to Mujjafar Nagar. Accused Narender and Smt. Rajesh made several calls to them to send Priyanka to Shamli and when phone call was received from Shamli, her daughter Priyanka used to start shivering. After one and half month, accused Rahul came to their house and assured that "aage se aisa nahi hoga" but they refused to send her daughter at Shamli and said that she should be taken to Delhi by him. So, Rahul and Priyanka shifted to Delhi. After that, they had given the gold jewellery of 4 tolla and some household articles including clothes etc to Priyanka. After some time, accused Rahul took her daughter Priyanka at Shamli and Deoband and they started visiting Shamli and Deoband. Thereafter, mother in law, father in law, sister in law (nanad) and brother in law (nandoi) also started visiting the house of Priyanka at Delhi. As and when her daughter Priyanka visited Shamli, her father in law and mother in law asked her to make call to her parents for providing one flat in Delhi.
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 66 of 103
144. She has further stated that in the month of February 2014, a Jagaran was again organized at the house of Monika at Deoband, U.P. Accused Rajeev came to their house with invitation card of the said Jagaran and stated that " Rahul ko flat kab dilwa rahe ho, ab to tumhara ladka bhi naukari kar raha hai". Accused Rahul alongwith Priyanka reached at Deoband. Her son Mohit also reached there. On 14.02.2014, accused Rahul took Priyanka at Shamli and from Shamli, on 16.02.2014, her daughter Priyanka was taken to Delhi by accused Rahul. As and when she talked her daughter on telephone, she told that jewellery given to her by them on second occasion was snatched by her mother in law and sister in law. She further informed her that her mother in law and father in law had pressurized her to ask her parents to provide flat in Delhi and that on refusal, she was beaten.
145. PW15 has further stated that on 01.03.2014, accused Rahul wanted to take Priyanka at Shamli but she refused. So, a quarrel took place between Rahul and Priyanka on this issue. Thereafter, Rahul went to Shamli alone, where accused Rahul was tutored by other accused persons for the stay of Priyanka at Shamli, On returning to Delhi, accused Rahul asked Priyanka to ask her father to provide a flat in Delhi otherwise he will leave her at Shamli.
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 67 of 103
146. PW15 has been confronted with certain facts in her cross examination but it has been confirmed by the witness that they used to pay Rs 15000/ to Rs 20,000/ to accused Rahul. She has also confirmed that all the jewellery of Priyanka was taken by her mother in law.
147. The fact as deposed by PW15 in her examination in chief that when Priyanka started living at Delhi with Rahul, they gave gold jewellery of 4 tolla and some household articles including clothes etc is not appearing in her statement Ex PW15/DA. Even she has been confronted with her statement Ex PW15/DA in respect of fact that in the month of February 2014 accused Rajeev came to their house and stated that when they were providing flat to Rahul while inviting them to Deoband, UP at Jagran. Even this fact has been confronted with statement Ex PW15/DA, where this fact has not been recorded. She has further stated to the police in her statement that after one week, her daughter Priyanka told them telephonically that jewellery given to her on second occasion was snatched by her mother in law and sister in law. Even this fact has been confronted with statement Ex PW15/DA, where this fact has not been recorded. Again she has confirmed that the parents of Rahul had pressurized Priyanka to ask her parents to provide a flat in Delhi.
148. PW15 has also been cross examined on the aspect of their financial position, to which she has stated that at the time of marriage of her State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 68 of 103 daughter Priyanka, her son Mohit used to give tutions and her husband used to do work as teacher in Jaat College, Mujjafar Nagar and receiving salary of Rs 40,000/ per month. She has denied the suggestion that they were making both ends meet hardly. She has denied that accused persons had not made any demand of dowry before the marriage. She has also stated that jewellery articles given to her daughter Priyanka in marriage were already available with them in their house. She has also denied the suggestion that I1o car was purchased by the family members of Rahul, out of their own funds. She has also stated that they used to pay Rs 7000/ to Rs 8000/ for expenses of their son Mohit. She has also denied the suggestion that all the household articles including all academic documents of Rahul from the house of Priyanka were taken to Mujjafar Nagar in a truck. She has also denied the suggestion that they had demanded Rs 30 lacs from the accused persons to change their statements or to transfer agriculture land of their village in their name.
149. PW11 is Mohit Kumar. He is brother of deceased Priyanka. He has stated that in the marriage of his sister, accused persons had demanded dowry and they had given I10 car, 1012 tolas gold and other household articles. After marriage, his sister Priyanka went to her matrimonial house at Shamli, where all the accused persons started harassing her and asked to bring money from her parents by saying, "tere baap ne diya hi kya hai, chaar bhaiyo me akeli ladki hai".
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 69 of 103
150. He has further stated that on 12/02/2011, his mother had gone to the matrimonial house of accused Monika alongwith her relatives and had talk with her sister Priyanka, who told that accused persons were harassing her and taunted her, by saying that "tere baap ne diya hi kya hai". Thereafter, his mother brought his sister to their house at Muzaffar Nagar. Thereafter accused persons other than accused Rahul came to their house and requested to send his sister with them but they refused to send his sister with them. After about one and half months, all the accused persons came to their house and apologized for their behavior and undertake not to repeat the same in future. On this, his sister was sent with the accused persons. But even thereafter, accused Rahul and his parents did not take care of his sister properly and again started taunting her and asked her to bring money from her parents. He has further stated that in the month of December 2011, due to ill health of his sister, he went to matrimonial house of his sister at Shamli to meet her and he stayed there for about 15 days. At that time, his sister told him that accused persons were not taking care of her and she was made to do all the household work despite her ill health and all her jewellery given by her parents at the time of marriage were snatched by her mother in law and her sister in law. She has further told that accused persons were not providing her proper food and used to taunt her by saying, "tere baap ne diya hi kya hai, apne maa baap se paise mang kar lao". During that period, his mother also visited the house of the accused persons at Shamli State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 70 of 103 and returned after meeting his sister. Thereafter, he brought his sister to Muzaffar Nagar for treatment, where she was treated by Dr. Prem Singh and she also remained admitted for one night at his clinic. Accused Rahul came to see his sister in the said clinic and he was scolded by Dr Prem Singh by saying that this is because of their behavior and when accused Rahul asked to take Priyanka with him, they refused. On their advice, accused Rahul took his sister Priyanka to Delhi and started residing in Uttam Nagar, Delhi. Parents of accused Rahul did not give any household articles except TV and bed, when they shifted to Delhi. In laws of Priyanka told that all the household articles will be given by the parents of Priyanka. So, his parents had given four tolas gold and other household articles to her. Accused persons started visiting the house of his sister at Delhi and again started harassing and taunting her to bring money. His sister was also threatened by accused Rahul by asking to bring money otherwise he will leave her at Shamli of which his sister was afraid. His father used to send him Delhi to the house of his sister with cash amount of Rs 15,000/ to Rs 20,000/ after about every three months, which he used to give to accused Rahul. His sister was also taunted by accused persons by saying that "tu banjh hai, banjar jameen hai". Parents of accused Rahul used to say his sister as to for how long their son will be residing in rented houses and they asked her to arrange / purchase a flat for Rahul.
151. He has further deposed that in the month of January 2013, he State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 71 of 103 came to Delhi and took a room on rent in the same house on the same floor. His father used to give him Rs 7000/, Rs 8000/ per month, out of which he used to give Rs 5000/ to his sister and accused Rahul.
152. He has further deposed that on 12/02/2014, there was a jagran in the house of accused Monica at Deoband and accused Rahul and his sister had also gone there to attend the same. And while his sister returned to Delhi, she told him that her mother in law and sister in law had snatched, after beating her, the jewellery items, which were given by her parents and did not allow her to wear the same in the jagran.
153. He has further deposed that accused Rahul, Narender and Rajeev had beaten her and asked her to ask her parents to purchase a flat for Rahul. He has further deposed that when accused Rajeev had come to their house at Muzaffar Nagar for inviting them for jagran, again he had raised demand of flat for accused Rahul.
154. He has further deposed that on 01/03/2014, a quarrel had taken place between accused Rahul and Priyanka and thereafter accused Rahul had left for Shamli and his sister told him that accused Rahul wanted to take her with him at Shamli but she had refused as she was apprehension of harassment by the accused persons, if she will go there.
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 72 of 103
155. He has further deposed that on 02/03/2014 accused Rahul returned from Shamli and quarreled with his sister. When he came back in the evening, his sister told him that accused Rahul had again harassed and quarreled with her for the demand of a flat as parents of accused Rahul were also planning to stay with him.
156. In the cross examination, this witness has denied the suggestion that household articles including cash and jewellery items of the accused were taken by him from the house of accused Rahul, after arrest of accused Rahul.
157. PW11 has denied the suggestion that Almira was purchased by accused Rahul out of his own funds after shifting to Delhi or that payment was made through ATM Cum debit card rather he had stated that he had given him money for the same and he had also gone with accused Rahul at the time to purchase the said Almira. PW11 has also denied the suggestion that gas connection was purchased by accused Rahul out of his own funds after shifting to Delhi. Voluntarily he has stated that he himself paid for the gas connection and has denied the suggestion that he had not given any money to accused Rahul to purchase the gas connection.
158. PW11 has also denied the suggestion that mixer was purchased by accused Rahul out of his own funds after shifting to Delhi. State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 73 of 103
159. PW11 has also denied the suggestion that it is visible in mark PW 11/DY11 that his sister was wearing diamond necklace in her neck and also wearing gold bangles because the same is not clear.
160. PW11 has also denied the suggestion that accused Rajeev has not visited his house at Muzaffar Nagar. He has also denied the suggestion that after shifting to Delhi, his sister Priyanka never visited her matrimonial house at Shamli or that she had never received any call from accused Smt. Rajesh and accused Narender Singh and any of the other accused persons.
161. PW11 has also denied the suggestion that after attending the kua poojan ceremony at the house of his Bua few days before the death of his sister or that after coming from said function Priyanka was highly depressed by saying that her life is useless as she is unable to conceive and to give birth to a child.
162. PW11 has further denied that he had taken all the articles belonging to Priyanka after death of Priyanka with him. He has stated that police had prepared list of articles and he had taken some clothes and one bag of Priyanka only while remaining articles were given to his Bua for distributing the same to needy people. He has denied the suggestion that said articles were distributed in his presence.
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 74 of 103
163. PW11 Mohit Kumar has been confronted with his statement Ex PW 11/D recorded by SDM and statement dated 11.03.2014 Ex PW 11/DX1, and statements Ex PW 11/DX2, Ex PW11/DX3, Ex PW 11/DX4, Ex PW 11/DX5, Ex PW 11/DX6 and Ex PW 11/DX7 u/s 161 Cr.P.C. where it is specifically not recorded that 1012 tola gold was given in the marriage and also that accused persons used to say "tere baap ne diya hi kya hai, chaar bhaiyo mai akeli ladki hai". Again he has been confronted with the same statement to the fact that accused persons other than Rahul came to their house and requested to send his sister with them but they refused to send his sister with them due to their behavior towards her. Thereafter, after about one and half month, all the accused persons came to their house and apologized for their behavior and undertake not to repeat the same in future. So, his sister was sent with the accused persons. These facts are not appearing in the statement recorded by prosecution.
164. Again PW11 has been confronted with the fact that he stayed at the matrimonial house of his sister at Shamli for about 15 days and during that time, his sister told him that the accused persons were not taking care of her and she was made to do all the household work despite her ill health. She had further stated to him that all the jewellery items given to her in her marriage by her parents have been snatched by her mother in law and her sister in law. These facts are not appearing in the statements recorded of this State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 75 of 103 witness, as referred above.
165. Again PW11 has been confronted with the fact that during those 15 days, his mother also visited the house of the accused persons at Shamli on one occasion and she returned after meeting his sister. Thereafter, he brought his sister to Muzaffar Nagar for treatment, where she was treated by Dr. Prem Singh and she also remained admitted for one night at his Clinic. Accused Rahul also came to see his sister in the said Clinic and he was scolded by Dr. Prem Singh by saying that this is because of behavior of accused persons. This fact is also not recorded in the statements of this witness, as referred above.
166. Again PW11 has been confronted with the fact that Smt Rajesh and Narender have stated that all the household articles will be given by parents of Priyanka, if accused Rahul and Priyanka will shifted to Delhi and four tolas gold and other household articles were given. However, these facts are not appearing in the statements of witness recorded, as referred above. However, it is recorded that maine Delhi mai Rahul ko fridge, Almira, Mixi aadi ke liye paise diye.
167. Again PW11 has been confronted with the demand of flat, as stated by the witness, which is not found recorded in his statement, recorded by the SDM Ex PW11/D. Even the fact of making payment of Rs 5,000/ State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 76 of 103 per month to his sister by him and a sum of Rs 2,000/ to accused Rahul is not found recorded in the statements of this witness. However, it is recorded that mere Papa mujhe Rahul ke liye har tin mahine mai 15,000 ke lagbhag paise lai kar Delhi bhejte the, jo mai Rahul ko de deta tha.
168. Again this witness has been confronted with the fact that his sister's jewellery articles were snatched by her mother in law and sister in law after beating her, which is not found recorded in the statement of this witness, as referred above.
169. This witness has also been confronted with the fact that accused Rahul, Narender and Rajeev had beaten his sister and had raised demand of flat with her parents for Rahul, which is not found recorded in Ex PW11/D and also the fact that accused Rajeev had raised demand of the flat when he had gone to the house of Priyanka's family for inviting them for jagran is also not found recorded in the statements of witness, as referred above.
170. PW11 has further been confronted with the fact that on 02/03/2014, when accused Rahul returned from Shamli, quarreled with Priyanka and in the evening, his sister told him that accused Rahul had again harassed and quarreled with her for the demand of a flat, which is also not found recorded in the statements of this witness, as referred above and is State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 77 of 103 recorded in different manner and it is recorded in Ex PW11/DX1 that jab 02.03.2014 ko mere jija vapas aiy to fir se jagda hua tha, 02.03.14 ko jab mai ghar aya to meri behan ne mujhe bataya ki Rahul ne use bahut pareshan kiya hai.
171. It is contended by ld. Counsel that from the cross examination of above witness, it is clear that neither any demand was raised of money, household articles or flat or that the same was fulfilled in any manner and even it could not be proved that PW11 used to give money to accused Rahul. It is further contended that according to further cross examination of PW11, at the time of marriage, he was not having any source of income and he was studying at that time. He has also stated that his father was getting pension from his previous job and had not taken any loan for the marriage of his sister.
172. It is further contended that according to further cross examination of PW11, he has admitted that prior to death of Priyanka, he had not made any complaint regarding demand of dowry or harassment by the accused persons before any authority including police.
173. It is further contended that it has not been proved that the jewellery articles etc were purchased and also that car i10 was purchased by the family members of deceased Priyanka. It is further contended that State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 78 of 103 PW11 has admitted that no demand of dowry was made from him at any point of time by the accused persons but voluntarily, he has stated that demands have been made in his presence from his sister.
174. In view of above, from the deposition of PW11 Sh. Mohit, prosecution has been able to prove that money was given to accused Rahul Nirwal at Delhi for purchase of fridge, almirah, mixergrinder etc. It is also proved that father of deceased Priyanka used to send Rs 15,000/ quarterly at Delhi through PW11 Mohit for handing over the same to accused Rahul Nirwal. So, in view of the same, prosecution has been able to prove that Priyanka was being harassed and tortured for the demand of dowry articles and the same was fulfilled by the parents of deceased Priyanka through brother of deceased PW11 Sh. Mohit. Hence, the contentions of ld. Counsel for accused persons are not forceful in any manner.
175. PW4 Smt Harpal Kaur has stated that she was knowing accused Rahul and has identified him in the court. Accused Rahul was living as tenant at the first floor of her house with Priyanka from January 2012 to March 2014. Mother in law, father in law and sister in law of Priyanka also used to reside in the said house. Brother of Priyanka i.e., Mohit also lived in the said house as a tenant for about one and half years. PW4 has also identified father in law, mother in law and sister in law in the court. Accused Rahul used to leave the house for his job at about 88.30 am and used to State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 79 of 103 come back by 67 pm. Accused Rahul was paying rent of Rs 4000/ while Mohit was paying rent of Rs 2000/ per month. The general relations between accused Rahul and Priyanka were cordial but as and when her mother in law and sister in law used to come, they used to tell her that Priyanka was not talking to them. On the other hand, Priyanka used to tell her that due to household work, she could not sit with her mother in law and sister in law. Priyanka used to get disturbed as and when she used to visit her in law's house at Shamli. On one occasion, when Priyanka returned from Shamli, she was ill, she took her to Dr. Kalra in Vikas Puri, who told that she was not suffering from any illness but was mentally disturbed. On one occasion, in the months of NovemberDecember / 2013, Priyanka had gone to the house of her sister in law at Devband and after returned from there, Priyanka told that her mother in law and sister in law were wearing all the jewellery but she was not given any jewellery items and was not permitted to wear the same. She was very sad and was deeply disturbed. Father in law, mother in law and sister in law of Priyanka did not use to reside permanently with accused Rahul and Priyanka. Accused Rahul and Priyanka were having only one bed and TV, when they had come to Delhi.
176. Ld. counsel for accused persons has contended that deposition of PW4 i.e., an independent witness, showing that the relations between accused Rahul and Priyanka were cordial. Her deposition also showing that Priyanka did not tell her about demand of dowry or beaten by accused State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 80 of 103 Rahul or by other accused persons. It is further contended that the deposition of PW4 also falsify the testimony of other witnesses, who have stated that when accused Rahul and Priyanka shifted to Delhi, at that time, all the household articles were provided to them by the parents of Priyanka alongwith four tolas gold jewellery as PW4 has stated that accused Rahul and Priyanka were having only one bed and TV, when they had come to Delhi.
177. In her further examination, PW4 has stated that on 04/09/2014, accused Monica came to her house and threatened her to change the statement. So, in this regard, she had lodged FIR no. 1142/14 in PS Uttam Nagar. He has further stated that Priyanka told her that her father had given Rs 27,000/ to purchase a fridge but her mother in law took the said amount and converted it in fixed deposit. Whenever Priyanka received telephone calls of her mother in law and sister inlaw, after talking to them, she used to worry and got disturbed.
178. In the cross examination, PW4 has been confronted with various facts as deposed by this witness in her examination in chief. In the cross examination, PW4 has admitted that relatives of the deceased also used to visit her tenanted house. PW4 has further stated that she does not know if accused Rahul asked Mohit to make a separate arrangement for his stay or that if one of the uncle of Priyanka was in Delhi Police, who used to State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 81 of 103 visit her tenanted house or that if the said uncle of deceased Priyanka had reached at the spot immediately after the incident and manipulated the things or that she is not deliberately disclosing the same. PW4 has further stated that she does not remember if Priyanka had shown her the photographs of the Jagran attended by her at the house of accused Monika, in which she was looking happy.
179. Another witness is Pradeep Kumar. He has been examined as PW5. He has deposed about the marriage of deceased with accused Rahul and has identified the accused persons before court. He has stated that after one year of the marriage of deceased Priyanka, when they had brought her to Muzaffar Nagar after attending Jagran at the house of accused Monica at Devband, at that time, Priyanka told him that her in laws had not treated her well and they used to beat her. She has further told to him that they used to make dowry demands from her. Later on, accused Rahul and Priyanka started residing at Delhi. Priyanka did not meet him after she started residing at Delhi. This witness has been cross examined by ld. Addl. PP for State in which he has stated that one I10 car, household articles and jewellery items were given in the marriage and after four months of the marriage, Priyanka had told that accused persons used to misbehave with her and used to ask her to demand money from her father. On one occasion, when Priyanka met him, she told that her husband used to ask her to purchase a flat for him by her father .
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 82 of 103
180. It is contended by ld. Counsel for accused persons that this witness cannot be relied upon as he has stated in the cross examination that one criminal case u/s 307 of IPC has been registered against him at District Muzaffar Nagar in respect of attempt to commit murder of his uncle and he has been awarded imprisonment for 10 years by the Court of Sessions. Further father of deceased has been helping him and his family members in the said criminal case and also bear the expenses of his son, who was residing in the house of parents of deceased Priyanka. It is further contended by ld. Counsel for accused persons that PW5 has admitted that his son was residing with the parents of deceased Priyanka and was studying at Muzzafar Nagar.
181. From the depositions of the witnesses i.e., PW15, PW16, PW11, PW4 and PW5, it is proved that the deceased Priyanka was tortured and harassed on account of demand of dowry and not only this, according to the statement of Mohit, brother of deceased Priyanka, he used to hand over Rs 15,000/ approximately to accused Rahul but even then his sister was harassed and tortured. It seems that after shifting to Delhi, while Mohit was also residing with his sister Priyanka, parents of deceased Priyanka used to send money to accused Rahul. Even after shifting to Delhi, cash was given for the household articles because according to PW4 Smt Harpal Kaur, Rahul and Priyanka were having only one bed and TV when they had come State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 83 of 103 to Delhi, which shows that rest of the articles given in the dowry at the time of marriage, list of which is Ex PW11/B and Ex PW16/DA, were kept by the in laws of Priyanka at Shamli. So, the contentions of ld. Defence counsel are not forceful in any manner.
182. PW11 is Mohit, who is brother of deceased Priyanka. He has deposed about the list of dowry articles and PW16 Sh. Virender Singh is father of deceased Priyanka, who has been confronted with his previous statement Ex PW16/DA and also been cross examined about his financial status, which could enabling him to spend Rs 12,36,000/ on the marriage. In this respect, statements of accounts have been taken on record, showing financial status of father of deceased and his relatives. In the cross examination, PW16 has stated that they all three brothers were earning and were having joint family. It has also been deposed by PW16 in his cross examination that gold jewellery, which was given in the marriage of Priyanka was converted from old gold jewellery, which was available at home and bills were not issued of the same. PW16 has denied the suggestion that father of accused Rahul had stated that marriage will be dowry less marriage or that no dowry at all shall be accepted. He has further stated in the cross examination that the i10 car was purchased by them against cash payment and no cash receipt was received against such payment but the documents were prepared in the name of accused Rahul by the seller. PW16 has denied the suggestion that car was purchased by family members of State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 84 of 103 accused Rahul or that payment of the sale consideration of the same was made by father of accused Rahul after obtaining a loan against his pension or that installments of the said loan taken for purchase of car were paid by father of accused Rahul.
183. In the statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, in respect of question no. 22, accused Rahul Nirwal has replied that he had brought all the articles from Shamli on tempo but PW4 Smt Harpal Kaur, who is independent witness, has not been suggested so. Even PW4 has stated in her examination in chief that Priyanka had told to her that her father had given Rs. 27,000/ to purchase a fridge but her mother in law took the said amount and converted it in fixed deposit to which she told to Priyanka that she could use her fridge and kitchen whenever required and it has not been suggested to PW4 that all the household articles were brought by accused Rahul while shifting to Delhi.
184. According to the chargesheet, information was received, which was recorded vide DD No. 37A Ex PW13/DA. According to which, information was received about a lady, who committed suicide. Same was given to SI Kuldeep. Site plan Ex PW14/A was prepared. Mobile crime team report Ex PW2/A was obtained. Two pieces of chunni were recovered from the spot. One piece of chunni was found hanging with the ceiling fan and another piece of chunni was lying near the dead body on the bed. These State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 85 of 103 were seized vide memo Ex PW17/A.
185. According to postmortem report Ex PW9/A, cause of death was due to asphyxia from ligature hanging and the manner of death was suicide.
186. Ld. counsel for accused persons has contended that distance between the ceiling fan and bed if calculated, then one cannot commit suicide as there would not be any space for hanging. It is further contended that no chair or stool etc was found with the help of which deceased could have committed suicide. It is further contended that from the circumstances, it seems that she has been murdered.
187. According to the postmortem report, deceased had committed suicide, which has been proved by PW9 Dr. Ajay Sharma. He has been cross examined on the aspect of preparing of rough notes at the time of conducting postmortem and also that there is no stamp and seal on the postmortem report. PW9 has denied that he had not conducted the postmortem. PW9 has denied that postmortem report Ex PW9/A was not prepared at DDU Hospital or has been prepared by someone else at the instance of IO. PW9 has stated that merely by observing the ligature marks, it cannot be said whether the death was suicidal or due to forceful hanging but he has stated voluntarily, thus it can be clarified only after postmortem. No suggestion has been given to this witness that it was a murder and State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 86 of 103 witness has denied that the postmortem report was tampered after it was prepared by him.
188. From the deposition of PW9 and postmortem report Ex PW9/A, it is proved that it was a case of suicide.
189. PW4 Smt Harpal Kaur has stated that on 03/03/2014, accused Rahul had called on her landline phone and asked her to call Priyanka as she was not picking his phone. She told Rahul that balance was not sufficient in the phone of Priyanka. She went upstairs and knocked at the door of the house of Priyanka but the door was not opened and thereafter, she came down stairs and made a call to Rahul and told him that Priyanka was not opening the door. Then, Rahul asked her to break the door by saying, "kahin usne goli na kha li ho, kahin usne fasi na laga li ho". Rahul also told her that there was a quarrel between him and Priyanka and she again went up stairs and tried to open the door but could not do so. Then, their neighborers gathered there and they broke open the window glass with the help of one pipe. When they looked inside through the window, it was found that Priyanka was hanging with ceiling fan with the help of one chunni. Someone informed the police at number 100 from her mobile phone. Police and Ambulance reached at the spot. Her condition had deteriorated on seeing Priyanka. Police officials removed the dead body of Priyanka from the ceiling fan and she was taken to hospital.
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 87 of 103
190. In the cross examination, PW4 has been confronted with her statement that she came downstairs and made a call to Rahul and told him that Priyanka was not opening the door, which is not appearing in her statement Ex PW4/DA and Ex PW4/DB. It is also not clear that Rahul asked her to break the door, which is also not recorded in her statement. It is also not clear that they were able to break the window glass with the help of one pipe, which is also not recorded in her statement. The fact that when they looked inside through window, it was found that Priyanka was hanging with ceiling fan with the help of one chunni, is also not recorded in her statement but it is recorded that, "khidki ko tudwake dekha to Priyanka chunni se pankhe se palang per baithi hui, gardan ek taraf ludhka hua thaa". The fact that someone informed the police at number 100 from her mobile phone number is also not found recorded in her statement. The fact that mobile phone was found kept on charpai lying on the roof when she had gone to roof second time is also not recorded in her statement.
191. In further cross examination, PW4 has stated that window glass was broken by one boy namely Amit. The main door was broken before reaching the police at the spot. She became unconscious after seeing Priyanka hanging with ceiling fan. She has denied the suggestion that Rahul did not tell her on telephone that there was a quarrel between him and Priyanka. She has also denied the suggestion that Priyanka used to tell her State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 88 of 103 that she was not being conceived as Rahul was having some problem. She voluntarily stated that Rahul used to say that, "abhi bacha nahi chahiye, abhi hamari umar kya hai". PW4 has further denied the suggestion that Priyanka used to tell her that she wanted a child but Rahul was not agreed. Voluntarily she has stated that Priyanka used to tell her that, "sare bache ke liye tang karte hai".
192. Ld. defence counsel has cross examined PW4 on some aspects to caste doubt on the fact of suicide and tried to convert it into murder but nothing came out from the cross examination of PW4 to presume it as murder.
193. Another neighbour is PW6 Ms. Monica. She has stated that on 03/03/2014 at about 3.30 pm, she was going to drop her son. She found that her neighborer Ms. Harpal Kaur was vigorously knocking at the door of the portion, where deceased Priyanka was residing. After hearing the noise, she went there and asked Smt Harpal Kaur as to what was the matter. She was told that Priyanka was not opening the door and she also knocked the door and tried to open the same but it could not opened. Thereafter, they pushed the door of the window forcefully and in this process, the glass of the window was broken. When they peeped throw the window, they saw that Priyanka was hanging with ceiling fan. Other neighborers also gathered at the spot and they forcefully pushed the door and opened it. Thereafter, they State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 89 of 103 informed the police. Police reached at the spot and removed the dead body from the ceiling fan. She was asked to accompany, when Priyanka was taken to hospital. At the hospital, Priyanka was declared brought dead.
194. In the cross examination conducted by Ld. Addl. PP for State, PW6 has denied that they had removed the dead body from the ceiling fan and it was put on the bed. She has stated that dead body was removed by the persons gathered at the spot but it was in the presence of police. She has further stated that chunni was cut by the public persons in the presence of police, when Priyanka was hanging with the ceiling fan.
195. In the cross examination by ld. Defence counsel, this witness has been confronted with her previous statement, wherein she has stated that glass of the door was broken by her.
196. Ld. defence counsel has contended that there are material contradictions in the statements of PW4 and PW6. It is contended that according to PW4, window glass was broken with the help of pipe by one boy Amit, whereas according to PW6, she had broken the window glasses. It is also contended that there are contradiction about the position of dead body as to whether was hanging or sitting on the bed while having chunni in her neck.
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 90 of 103
197. PW7 Sh. Guru Dutt has stated that he does not remember the date, month or year of the incident but he heard noise from the house no. 180, situated in front of his house that "fasi laga li, fasi laga li". He reached there. Several neighborers were already there. Police officialss including photographer were also there. Police officials got the dead body removed from the ceiling fan. He also helped in the process.
198. This witness has also been cross examined by ld. Addl. PP for State, wherein he has admitted that incident took place in the house of Smt Harpal Kaur and Priyanka was residing there as a tenant. He has further admitted that when he reached there, his neighbor Monika and other neighborers also reached there. He has stated that glass of the window had already been broken and the main door was already opened when he reached there. It is also denied that he removed the dead body from the ceiling fan after cutting the chunni with the help of neighborers.
199. According to PW17 SI Kuldeep Singh on 03/03/2014, he was on emergency duty and at about 4.15 pm, he received DD No. 37A regarding hanging of one lady at A1/180, Uttam Nagar, Hastal RoadDelhi. So, he alongwith Ct Pramod reached at the spot, where landlady namely Smt Harpal Kaur met and told them that her tenant Priyanka resident of first floor of her house, hanged herself. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct Pramod went to the first floor of the said house. On the first floor, they found that State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 91 of 103 glass of the door of window was already broken and door of the said room was slightly opened. Dead body of the Priyanka was lying on the bed and half piece of the chunni was tied with the ceiling fan in the said room and other part of the chunni was lying on the bed near the dead body of Priyanka. In the meantime, crime team reached there. Crime team inspected the spot and took the photographs of the spot. Information regarding the death of Priyanka was given to SDM, Patel Nagar. Parents of the deceased were informed. Dead body of the deceased was sent to mortuary of DDU Hospital through Ct Pramod. Both parts of chunni were sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex PW17/A.
200. In the cross examination, PW17 has stated that he had not seen the dead body of Priyanka in hanging position. When he reached at the spot, he found the dead body in laying condition on the bed. He has further stated that despite inquiries, he could not come to know about the name of any particular person, who removed the dead body from the ceiling fan. He has further stated that one portion of the chunni was removed from the ceiling fan by Ct Pramod. Again this witness has been cross examined on the lines of murder by ld. Defence counsel and PW17 has been questioned about presence of any stool, bucket or bench. He has admitted that there was no reference about any stool, bucket or bench in any of the documents prepared by him. PW17 had further stated that the bed was under the ceiling fan. . He had not measured the length of the hanging rod of the ceiling fan. He cannot State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 92 of 103 admit or deny if the length of the hanging rod was two feet. On enquiry, he came to know that some other tenants were also residing in the said house.
201. PW17 has also stated that he cannot distinguish between force hanging, self hanging and forced hanging after strangulation. He has further stated that the height of the room in which dead body was lying was about 810 feet. He did not try to recreate the scene of crime during investigation.
202. Ld. Addl. PP for State has contended that all such questions asked to PW17 are of no use as PW9 Dr Ajay Sharma has already proved that it was a case of hanging, so the contradictions as pointed out by ld. Defence counsel in the statements of witnesses are immaterial. It is also contended by ld. Addl. PP for State that the dead body was lying on the bed was found hanging is also immaterial as PW9 has proved that it was a case of suicide.
203. PW1 ASI Bhoop Singh has recorded the FIR Ex PW1/C. PW2 ASI Ajit Singh is Incharge of Crime Team. He has prepared crime team report Ex PW2/A. PW3 Ct Satpal had taken the photographs of the spot as Ex PW3/A, Ex PW3/B1 to B10. PW10 is HC Vijay Kumar. He was working as MHC(M) and case property was deposited with him.
204. PW11 Mohit is brother of deceased. He has stated that Smt State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 93 of 103 Harpal Kaur on call asked him to reach quickly at home. So, he reached at the house, where police was present and there was crowd. When he reached in the room, accused Rahul and police were already present there. His sister was lying on the bed covered with a cloth. Dead body was being taken by police for postmortem. Police officials had also handed over to him one mala, one ring, one artificial bangle and chutki of his sister. His statement and statement of his father Ex PW11/D were recorded. After the postmortem, dead body was handed over to his father as none of the accused reached there.
205. Ld. counsel for the accused persons contended that Priyanka had not committed suicide due to demand of dowry or that she was harassed or tortured for the same but was under depression and also that she could not conceive a child.
206. Ld. defence counsel in this respect has stated that according to PW8 Dr Inderjeet Kalra, who had examined Priyanka had prescribed medicines on 25/02/2012, 28/02/2012, 10/03/2012, 17/03/2012, 21/04/2012 and on 29/05/2014. The said prescriptions were produced by police and he gave his report Ex PW8/G. It is further contended by ld. Defence counsel that in the cross examination, PW8 has admitted that patient was brought to his clinic by her husband on two three occasions and on other two - three occasions, she came with her landlady. PW8 has further stated that the State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 94 of 103 symptoms mentioned in the prescription given by him are of anxiety and depression. It is further contended by ld. Defence counsel that this shows that Priyanka committed suicide due to depression and not due to demand of dowry.
207. On the other hand, ld. Addl. PP for State has contended that according to cross examination of PW8 Dr Inderjeet Kalra, it was not compulsory to have the tendency of suicide, which shows that she has not committed suicide due to the problems, as referred in the prescription given by PW8.
208. PW12 Sh. C.L Meena had recorded the statement of Mohit as Ex PW11/D and of Sh. Virender Singh, father of deceased as Ex PW12/A. This witness has also been cross examined about the cause of death of Priyanka, wherein he has stated that he does not remember the exact location of the hanging marks i.e., left side or right side. He also does not remember if the eyes and mouth were opened or not.
209. PW14 Inspector Mukesh Kumar received the investigation of this case and he inspected the spot and got prepared the site plan Ex PW14/A. He had also arrested accused Rahul vide memo Ex PW14/B.
210. PW18 Dr Prem Singh has also been examined about the State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 95 of 103 prescription dated 12/1/2012 Ex PW18/A in respect of Ms. Priyanka with the history of family stress and she was having acute severe headache and vomiting. She was found depressed. This witness has been cross examined on the lines by ld. Defence counsel that he had not examined Priyanka or that she was not admitted in Shanti Madan Hospital on his reference.
211. According to PW20 Inspector O.P Thakur as on 15/05/2014, Mohit Kumar brother of deceased handed over him bills of almirah, gas connection document and warranty card of the mixer grinder, which were seized by him vide memo Ex PW11/H. It is also suggested to this witness that he did not investigate the matter from the angle of murder. Witness has voluntarily stated that he did not feel anything like commission of murder and investigated the matter as the facts were seen/perceived by him.
212. PW21 Sh. Sunil Kumar, Senior Manager has produced bank accounts of Sh. Virender Singh and Priyanka. Similarly, PW22 Sh. Parvinder Singh, Senior Manager has also deposed about the account open form of Virender Singh and statement of account.
213. PW23 Sh. Roshan Baniwal has produced the statement of account of Madan Pal and statement of account of Ram Kumar and Saroj Singh.
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 96 of 103
214. PW24 Sh. Saurabh Aggarwal, Nodal Officer Vodafone has produced and proved the CDR and customer application form of accused Rahul in respect of mobile phone no. 8447534123 as Ex PW24/A to Ex PW24/G4. He has also produced record of mobile phone no. 9761483026 in the name of one Rajiv Kumar and also mobile phone no. 9675571034 of Rajeev Kumar.
215. PW25 Sh. Sunil Kumar, Nodal Officer, MTNL has produced the record of mobile phone no. 9868393775, which was issued to one company namely TCIL, Greater KailashI, Delhi. The record is Ex PW25/A to Ex PW25/D.
216. In defence one Sandeep Singh Gill has been examined as DW2. According to his deposition, Rahul shifted to his adjacent room of his residence, which was vacant and arranged all household articles i.e., double bed, almirah, gas stove etc. After about one month wife of Rahul Nirwal also shifted to the said room. DW2 has stated that he lived in his room for about six months and he did not find any problem in the relations of Rahul and Priyanka. After about six months, he was transferred to Punjab, so he vacated his rented premises.
217. DW1 is Vikas Choudhary. He used to visit accused Rahul at the rented flat situated at Uttam Nagar. Rahul and his wife were having cordial State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 97 of 103 relations. His native place and Rahul's native place is at Shamli, UP. Rahul and his wife generally used to go with him in his car to Shamli and he did not find any problem in their relation. Many a times, he had found Priyanka insisting Rahul to go to his native place over the weekend. Priyanka also discussed with his wife regarding not having any kid.
218. In the cross examination conducted by ld. Addl. PP for State, this witness has denied the suggestion that Priyanka had shifted to Delhi as she was ill treated by her inlaws at Shamli for demand of dowry or that she was not keeping well. DW1 has also denied that he never visited the rented accommodation of Rahul at Uttam Nagar. He has also denied that Rahul and his wife never went to Shamli with him in his car. So, the evidence of DW1 is only to the extent of cordial relations in between accused Rahul and Priyanka and also that they used to go with him to Shamli but these facts have not been put to PW4 Smt Harpal Kaur, who was landlady of the said tenanted premises and could have occasion to see DW1 or could have occasion to see Rahul and Priyanka going with him in a car to Shamli, which shows that DW1 is an after thought witness, hence cannot be relied upon.
219. DW3 is Ms. Amita. She is maternal aunt of accused Rahul Nirwal. She had attended the marriage of Rahul Nirwal and she had gone to the house of Rahul Nirwal 34 days prior to the marriage of Rahul Nirwal. State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 98 of 103 There was neither any demand of dowry by the accused persons nor they have desired anything in the marriage. Since Priyanka was beautiful girl that is why she was accepted by the family member of Rahul Nirwal for marriage and i10 car was bought by the family members of Rahul Nirwal prior to marriage. There was no occasion for the car to be given by the parents of Priyanka. In the month of December 2013, Priyanka met her at Shamli and she asked her as to why she was sad, who told that "mein issliye paresan hu, kee hamari kismat me shyad bacha nahi hai". She made her understood that child could be born at later stage.
220. In the cross examination, she has denied that accused persons used to harass Priyanka for demand of dowry or that due to the behavior of the accused persons, her health deteriorated. She was not aware if mother in law of Priyanka had snatched all the jewellery items given to her by her parents. She was also not aware that if accused Monika and her husband Rajeev and parents of Rahul started visiting the rented accommodation of accused Rahul or started harassing Priyanka to bring money from her parents. She has denied that she was present at the time when key of I10 car was handed over by the father of Priyanka to accused Narender Singh. So, this witness wants to say that marriage was dowryless and also that I10 car was purchased by the family members of accused Rahul. In my view, the best evidence could be produced by the accused persons if I10 purchased by them but no such evidence has been produced on record. So, in the absence State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 99 of 103 of any documentary evidence regarding purchase of I10 car by the accused persons, this witness cannot be relied upon in any manner.
221. The photographs on record Ex PW11/F (colly), shows 110 car and handing over the key of the same to accused. So, the deposition of DW3 is also contradictory to these facts.
222. Ld. counsel for the complainant has also contended that lastly from the mobile phone 8447534123, prepaid connection, which was issued in the name of accused Rahul. CDR of which is Ex FPW24/C and according to the same, on 03/03/2014, three calls were made from phone no. 9868393775 at about 14:00:05 and at about 14:41:03 and also at about 14:46:52 and durations of these calls were 2458,71 and 583.
223. It is further contended that at that time, mobile phone no. 8447534123 was being used by Priyanka and mobile phone no. 9868393775 was being used by accused Rahul, alloted to him by his company TCIL.
224. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for accused persons has contended that it has not been proved on record that the mobile phone number 9868393775 was given to accused Rahul by his company for use.
225. In my view, who else could call from the mobile phone of State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 100 of 103 company to Priyanka regularly and specifically on 03/03/2014 34 times at the relevant period. So, except accused Rahul, no other person could have call deceased Priyanka at the time, as referred above.
226. According to PW4 Smt Harpal Kaur, when Priyanka did not open the door, she made a call to Rahul and told him that Priyanka was not opening the door. Then, Rahul asked her to break the door by saying "kahin usne goli na kha li ho, kahin usne fasi na laga li ho", which itself shows that accused Rahul was having apprehension that Priyanka could commit suicide and the circumstances of that day i.e., 03/03/2014, while accused Rahul had made calls to Priyanka at that time have not been explained by accused Rahul in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. From the evidence brought on record, it is also proved that Priyanka was being taunted for not conceiving a child but infact accused Rahul had some medical problem, due to which child could not be conceived but the accused persons blamed deceased Priyanka only and tortured and harassed her on this count also. From the deposition of PW4, it is also proved that the dowry articles were kept by the parents of accused Rahul because when Rahul and deceased shifted to rented accommodation in the house of PW4, they were having only one bed and TV with them. According to the evidence, some other household articles were purchased and were given to deceased at her rented accommodation. Receipt of almirah is mark 11X15, of gas connection Mark 11X16 and of mixer and grinder Mark 11X17.
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 101 of 103
227. PW11 Mohit, brother of deceased has also stated that on 03/03/2014 at around 23 pm, he received a call from his sister Priyanka and she enquired if he had taken the lunch or not. She asked him to not to come to house today as she will talk with accused Rahul about the quarrel. He has further stated that after 3.30 pm, he received a call from accused Rahul, who told him that Priyanka is not picking his phone. So, he was feeling apprehension (mujhe dar lag raha hai). He told accused Rahul that she will pick the phone and she might be around. So, the fear of accused Rahul itself shows that he was apprehension that Priyanka could commit suicide and the circumstances for the same could be disclosed only by accused Rahul, which he has failed to do so in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
228. In view of above, the witnesses have corroborated each other and their testimonies remain unrebutted and unshaken about the fact that deceased Priyanka was harassed and tortured on account of demand of dowry by accused Rahul, which was fulfilled by the parents of Priyanka by giving Rs 15,000/ to Rs 20,000/ quarterly and also Rs 27,000/ were given for purchase of fridge at Delhi, which were also taken into possession and were converted into FDR.
229. Accordingly, prosecution has been able to prove the offence u/s 498A of IPC against accused Rahul Nirwal, beyond reasonable doubt for State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 102 of 103 which he is held guilty and convicted for the same and there is superficial evidence against other accused persons namely Smt Rajesh, Monica and Rajeev, which cannot be relied upon. Hence all accused Smt Rajesh, Monica and Rajeev are acquitted for the offence u/s 498A of IPC.
230. From the evidence of PW4 Smt Harpal Kaur and PW11 Sh. Mohit, specifically and from other witnesses, prosecution has also been able to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that deceased Priyanka committed suicide as she was subjected to cruelty and harassment for non fulfillment of demand of dowry and also that unnatural death took place within seven years, which accused Rahul Nirwal has not been able to rebut. So, prosecution has also been able to prove the offence u/s 304 B of IPC against accused Rahul Nirwal, beyond reasonable doubt for which he is held guilty and convicted for the same.
231. There is no evidence to prove any common intention of other accused persons of offence u/s 304 B of IPC. Hence, accused Smt Rajesh, Monica and Rajeev are acquitted for the same.
232. The prosecution has also been able to prove specifically from the evidence of PW4 Smt Harpal Kaur and PW11 Sh. Mohit alongwith other witnesses that Istri Dhan of deceased was entrusted to accused Rahul Nirwal, Narender Singh and Smt Rajesh and the same was misappropriated.
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc FIR No.229/14 P.S. - Uttam Nagar U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC Page 103 of 103 Even during the raid, the same could not be recovered in any manner. Accordingly, prosecution has been able to prove the offence u/s 406/34 against accused Rahul Nirwal, Narender and Smt Rajesh, beyond reasonable doubt, for which they are held guilty and convicted for the same.
(Announced in open
Court on 06.04.2019 ) (Virender Kumar Goyal)
ASJ04, West District,
Tis Hazari Court, Delhi
State Vs. Rahul Nirwal etc
FIR No.229/14
P.S. - Uttam Nagar
U/Sec.498A/304B/406/306/34 IPC